(Achten  Cohen)
Greg Achten
Pepperdine University
District 1
5 years judging
70+ rounds on topic
The main thing you should know about me is that the execution of the argument is almost as important
as the quality of the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended
is not very compelling to me. Also there are certain words that are value laden for me. These include but are not
limited to turn, moral imperative, deontology, and decision rule. These words and phrases should sound alarm
bells in your mind when you hear them because if you drop these kinds of arguments you are going to lose. That
doesn+t mean you should stand up and say -turn --the disad is stupid which is a deontological moral imperativeand expect to win. But these are phrases that are value laden in our community as well as in my mind and you
need to be on top of this kind of stuff.
As to other preferences, I am a pretty critique friendly judge. I will fairly listen to and evaluate critiques
and have found myself voting on critiques an awful ot this year. I am also more prone than other judges to vote
on topicality. I take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good
job of arguing topicality. one thing I should say about Topicality though is that in order for the negative to win,
they need to be able to articulate the specific ground they are losing due to the affirmative+s interpretation.
Other than that speed is fine as long as you+re clear and not some mush-mouthed freak. Evidence is
extremely important. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no
explanation in them. If your cards suck you+re in trouble. Also if your cards suck you can pretty much guess
your points are going to suck too.
Cross examination is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your
third answer to X. A good cross -ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them.
Everyone in the debate should be courteous. Rude behavior will only be tolerated if it is really funny and
I am the judge of that.
Heather Aldridge
Augustana College
Rounds Judged Current Topic: 25 Years judging: 8
As some of you know, I had a wrist injury that eventually required surgery.
The injury was to my writing hand, thus I cannot judge 8 debates at a time. Thus, the few number of rounds
judged on the topic. I do flow well the debates that I judge.
Basically, I am a policy-maker and will evaluate the round based on a comparative advantage method. Here are
some of my views on more specific theoretical issues.
I. Topicality: is a voter. I find good topicality debates to be filled
with comparisons and discussion of the implications of aff and neg.
interpretations of the resolution. Additionally, I rely pretty much on a
determination of what is fair ground and why. Reasonability, then, is
negotiated by the two teams in their discussion of the violation. I
believe that an affirmative is topical if their interpretation of the
resolution provides for legitimate areas of negative argumentation.
Essentially, if the interpretation would allow either an affirmative or a
negative a fair chance of winning under the interpretation then it seems
reasonable.
2. Counterplans: I am somewhat suspicious of the distinction between
conditionality and dispositionality. I think the conditions under which
the counterplan will go away should be spelled out so that the affirmative
has a chance to respond.
A.) Permutations --- I will evaluate perms as tests unless they are argued
otherwise.
B.) How I Dispense with Counterplans: if the counterplan does not compete
(based on permutations or other thoretical argumentation), then I stop
considering it and evaluate only the disads/turns versus the case
advantage. If there are turns/disads to the counterplan, I will evaluate
them not as tests of competition but as disadvantages/turns and then choose
the least disadvantageous policy.
C.) Topicality: Topical counterplans are o.k. However, I think that plan
inclusive counterplans which subsume all or fundamental parts of the
affirmative are unfair as the affirmative should be allowed to defend that
ground (tests of funding mechanisms can be accomplished by a disad). I will
not intervene based on this preference. The negative can (and has in the
past) defended plan-inclusive counterplans.
3. Kritiks: I believe that some Kritiks are not able to be debated in the
forum of a debate round, e.g., the critic of being. I will listen to
kritiks and evaluate them as best I can. I am persuaded by kritiks which
have implications within the context of the round (links), i.e., they test
an inherent assumption/premise. I also feel like the negative (or whomever
initiates the kritik) needs to defend their assumptions. It seems a bit
antithetical to argue that we must test our assumptions and then refuse to
defend one's own assumptions. Finally, I am a bit troubled by the
argumentative inconsistency of teams who run a kritik but then run disads
based on the assumptions which are flawed. We seem to disallow
contradictory disadvantages why should we allow such a philosophical
contradiction that one team has argued should be punished with a loss?
Ir
Heather Aldridge - contd
4. Evidence: I will read evidence after the round for clarification
purposes. Generally, I will read evidence referred by the debaters in the
debate. I will not read evidence that I could not understand during the
round due to a debater's lack of clarity. I appreciate citations that
include the qualifications of an author. I also appreciate attempts at
comparing the qualitative difference between a lexis card from an ap wire
to those of sources with some knowledge and expertise. These comparisons,
made in the debate and sometimes by me afterwards (if I have to), are
useful in deciding between two otherwise opposite pieces of evidence.
5. Style: I am capable of flowing speed but would prefer to have clarity
in the mix. I often will give NON-VERBAL signs like looking up or looking
confused to indicate when there is a lack of clarity. I prefer that
cross-ex actually be a time for questioning. I realize that there needs to
be someevidence gathering but am often disappointed by the devolution of
cx into a time for four people to talk at once about finding a piece of
evidence. I would also prefer that the person responsible for answering the
cx be given the opportunity to do so.
If you have any further questions please ask.
Judging Philosophy-Jenny Alme (Northwestern)
Being clear is my biggest advice. Being faster than you are clear is not an advantage when it is too hard to
flow/understand.
Fewer well-explained arguments with clear references to the best evidence in rebuttals will probably beat a
blippy spread that extends "all of the uniqueness cards" or something. A corollary is that I wouldrather hear a
few good cards than several with no warrants.
Debaters should pay more attention to probablility. This does not mean that you have to read evidence about risk
but you should weigh the Clinton risk against the solvency deficit of the CP or whatever.
Topicality is fine.
Critiques are fine. Make an extra effort to explain critiques that are unusual or complicated.
Being assertive in CX is good but make sure that you are not rude.
Otherwise, I love debate and will try to be flexible. Ask questions about anything you need to.
Jornel J. Angat George Mason University Debate 1999 #of Rounds: 50+ # of Tournaments: Too Many
My Judging Philosophy:
The Top Ten Ways to Pick Up My Ballot:
10.
Read evidence. Don't paraphrase no matter what you read on the listserv. Evidence supplies the warrant
for all our absurd claims.
9. Structure is good. Try numbering or lettering or Roman numerals. If you can't do that, say AND or NEXT
really loud so that I know when you are moving to the next argument.
8. Be creative. Everything is debateable. Negative strategies rely on Clinton and the Courl CP too much, how
about a nice abusive PIC or Exclusionary CP? Do something innovative to keep me interested.
7. New affs are cool. I like new affs, especially with cool tricks or add on advantages. I am tired of hearing
women in the n-tilitary every frickin' round. (Sorry Sparky ... )
Disads with specific links are cool. C'mon, it's the end of the year, do a little research. I will give a little leeway
to neg links on new cases and give the aff a little leeway on generic GOP hates civil rights links.
5.
Be offensive. I don't mean start to joking the other team (or your partner for that matter). Make offensive
arguments in the 2AC and the IAR, This impresses me, it shows that the aff lias actually t1iought about their
case.
4. Open CX is fine, but don't hog up the time with can I have this card or that card. Geez, ask some questions
or I will breakout a newspaper, (Tbat's an old school judging trick to get you to ask questions.)
3. Newargsinthe2NCarefine. Maybe not allnew, but if the 2AC only makes 2 answers onan overpopulation turn
on the case and doesn't recognize that the neg is going for Malthus, then they deserve to lose.
2. Don't Steele prep time. Don't act like you have some pressing issue before every speech where you have to
go to the bathroom or get a drink of water as your partner writes out your overview. Tbat'sa no-no in my
book.
AND The Number I Way to Pick Up My Ballot:
I. IMPACT ASSESSMENT PLEASEM
A) What is the impact on T? Why is your interp of the resolution better?
B) Critiques have some impact. What are they in relation to the case? M bad, conflation, etc
C) Rebuttals should have some comparative impact assessment.
That's about it, when in doubt, STRIKE ME. It won't hurt my feelings, I'd rather go coach my teams...
Last Name; Ardebilli
School: Kansas
Years Judging: I st year
First Name; Hajir Region: Midwest # Rounds: 50+
page 1
Opening Comments: My task as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented by the debaters in order to
determine which team has done the better job of debating. The debaters ought to feel free to determine the
content of their argumentation, as well as the framework within which they want me to evaluate those
arguments. I aim to be as objective as possible, but (news flash) judging is a subjective enterprise. With that
said, you should know that my default framework is that of a policymaker. Unless otherwise directed by the
debaters, I generally opt for the course of action that maximizes benefit. I am, however, more than willing to
consider critical philosophical and theoretical arguments. I am not a fan of A-Life, Spark, Racism/Sexism good,
Space, and other such nonsensical "strategies" employed as last-ditch efforts by teams who do not deserve their
eligibility. If you feel this unfairly constrains your freedom to speak your mind, then (ylkes!) please spell my
name Halip Ar-de I love to hear good debates, and I do not find these arguments conducive to that.
Topicality: It's a voting issue. I love a good topicality debate, and I'm probably more
willing than the average judge to pull the trigger on it, On the negative, * it helps to
explain how the affirmative interpretation abuses your ground, but you don't have to
win ground abuse for me to pull the trigger. I'm often persuaded by warrants couched
in terms of predictability. For affirmatives, I would encourage having a variety of
answers, especially "we meet' args., counterinterpretation(s), and counteTstandard(s).
Flaunting how you have the biggest $%*# on the topic or how there's lots of ev. on it
doesn't impress me, and it doesn't mean your plan is topical. Effects-topicality is
likewise a good argument in front of me. My views on extra-topicality are not as rigid;
it's certainly a debatable issue. Topicality as a reverse voting issue is not a wise
argument in front of me. Leave that at home with your udeath good" backfiles.
Flat: There is lots of room for debate here. Generally, I think that fiat resolves the "should/would" dilemma; we
assume that the plan is passed. We then debate the implications of that. The question of whether the negative
has fiat is open for debate, though I usually fall on the side of allowing the negative reciprocal fiat for CPs.
Saying "flatis illusory" only makes me feel sorry for the debater who actually thought we have the power to
make law. "Pre-fiat', "post-flatn, "on the gameboard", and "off the gameboard" are additional examples of
meaningless phrases that will only hurt your ethos. Don't use jargon; empower your ideas with a more profound
explanation of the implications of your argument!
Counten2lanso I think it is strategically wise to have a counterplan option on the negative. A word to the wise
on competition: the counterplan has to provide a reason to reject the plan in order to be net beneficial.
Additional advantages for the counterplan that the plan may not accrue are not reasons to reject the plan, and,
therefore, do not constitute net benefits. (Net benefit gotta link to da plan, got it?) Counterplans that are
mutually-exclusive with the plan (but not artificially competitive) give you more room to maneuver in this
regard. With CPs, plan-inclusivity, topicality, multiple/2NC CPs, conditionality/dispositionality are issues that I
love to allow debaters to debate.
Toby J. Arquefte
Northwestern University
BA.:
M.A.:
Ph.D.:
Wayne State University (Economics) - 4 years college debate
Baylor University (Telecommunication/Mass Communication) - 2 years coaching
Northwestern (in progress Telecommunication/Mass Communication) - 1 year coaching
Here we go again ... I forgot to save it from the last 5 years I've been out judging.
By default, I evaluate the two (or four) competing options in a debate in a cost-benefit manor. Being an
economist by training, I look to optimize utility when voting (or the debater, this means maximize the net
benefits in policy choice). This is not exclusive of other ways of evaluating the debate, but I would be
misleading you if now matter what you say, I still end up looking at the net benefits of any policy choice at the
end of the debate (though the lens of choice may be normative, pragmatic, etc.). You have substantial input into
how the cost-benefit analysis is conducted (and it is demanded of you when attempting to persuade me to vote
for your policy option).
I fundamentally view your role in the round as advocates. With that assumption, you must persuade me on any
given argument, issue, or policy option. Hence, arguments that I cannot understand (due to clarity, over
complexity, etc.) cannot possibly meet the threshold requirement of persuasion. Additionally, 4 is worth noting
that I (and I would argue all judges) have a predisposition on the credibility (or persuasiveness) of given
arguments. I know you cannot possibly know what arguments have inherent appeal to me (because even I don't
know at times), but you can be assured that claims without warrants do make meet this threshold (i.e. a moral
imperative without a warrant, a call to vote for a body count without a warrant, etc.).
A final caveat for both debate teams regards evidence. Too often debate has degenerated into the press wire that
is very power worded verses a not so power worded professional. Well you know what...the less power worded
card is probably more credible, because the professional knows better than to make the ridiculous
generalizations that the journalist for the AFP made. To put it simply, CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES
MATTERS TO ME! Additionally, you debate not your evidence. Hence, your evidence is a mere extension of
your arguments. If you say "5 reasons" verses your opponent who outlines those reasons and draws
differentiation between the cards, even if your card is from GOD, you will loose the argument.
To put it simply, you cannot go wrong with a straight-up strategy (meaning unique case turns, CP plus a net
benefit, etc.). I come from a tradition of lots of offensive arguments to beat-back, turn the case, or outweigh the
case. One caveat, while I prefer your case turns are unique, I think often times negatives let affirmatives get
away with the claim that impact of the case inevitable without consideration of the "temporal" uniqueness of the
tum(s). What do you mean, you ask? This means that I do belief that there is a net benefit in not causing the
impacts to come faster!
Now, the non-tradftional approach ... This is not to imply that you can go wrong with a less than normal
approach, but you run the risk of running into some of my predispositions regarding credible arguments.
Exemplary of this point, a K, T, noncompetitive CP, all while not out of bounds, have higher thresholds for
gaining my ballot. So how do you get me to vote on any or all of the above? Translate them into in-round
arguments. For example, K's are much more persuasive if run with case-turn impacts than just epistemological
or discursive impacts.
Think of argument choice (for me) as failing along a continuum of persuasive appeal:
Traditional Debate
Arguments
Easier to Persuade
Non-Traditional Debate
Arguments
Less Easy to Persuade
Where do you fall? Well, along the continuum. The less mainstream your argument strategy, the higher
threshold for persuasion. I will vote on almost ANYTHING. It is just a matter of persuading me to vote for ft.
While my judging philosophy may state the obvious, often the obvious is overlooked. I am not perfect, nor am I
claiming to be. I am not a computer that takes in data and spits out a predicted result. I do my best, but just like
you make mistakes in rounds, so to do your judges. The only problem is that a "mistake" is in the eye of the
beholder. Your advocacy is the tool to manipulate my imperfections and make sure I do not make a mistake.
Ask me ... While I may look like a b*tch at times (or most of the time), I am not really, and you can gain some
very good insight into me. Also, I have been around long enough that if you do not know me, then ask yourself,
would George Ziegelmueller vote for that? If the answer is yes, then ft probably is yes for me. If the answer is
no, then go a little to the left of George's philosophy and you will find me there (remember, I debated for
George and his belief system re: arguments is ingrained into me).
Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh
3 years judging NDT
21 rounds on this topic
General issues: Debate is an activity where the boundaries should be defined by the players. If you want the
round to be purely a game, that's fine with me. My personal default is to policymaking, with a large dose of
critical skepticism (read kritiks) as part of that model. Debate can also work toward social change, and if you
want to develop that possibility, feel free. While no one can truly be a blank slate, I try very hard to let the round
and the flow, rather than my personal biases, determine my decision. The areas below reflect my default
dispositions, but I will shift to whatever paradigm you choose to advocate if it is defended well.
Topicality I'll vote on it, but I expect the analysis to be fairly convincing; I generally have a pretty wide latitude
on the bounds of the topic. Reverse-voters might win my ballot, but they need to be more than a two word blip.
'Nuff said.
Counterplans: Probably the best way to test an affirmative case vis-a-vis other negative arguments in the
round. Any flavor of counterplan is welcomed, and the only real standard I'm interested in is competition.
Plan-inclusive is great, as are topical counterplans or any other variety that adds excitement to the world of
debate.
Kritiks: One of my personal favorites in terms of strategic options for both the negative and the affirmative. My
academic work applies post-structuralist criticism to policy analysis, so bring on the kritiks. As with
counterplans, I'm willing to listen to basically anything you want to do with philosophical argumentation in the
context of policy debate. Kritiks. don't have to be unique, you can run multiple kritiks, whatever trips your
trigger.
Style: As far as speed goes, let the fur fly if you want. Be clear, and I'll let you know if you're not. Be nice to
each other, your partner and your opponents; I really dislike overt rudeness and any sort of biased epithets.
Weigh issues throughout the debate, and I'm much more likely to follow your reasoning than my own personal
estimations of relative impacts. Analysis may be just as persuasive as evidence, so tag-line extensions are much
less likely to impress me than a specific and logical application of your arguments to those of your opponents.
Any other questions? Ask.
V
Name: Don Baker
School judging for: Cornell University
Number of rounds on topic: 40+
My "philosophy", if you can call it that", is fairly simple. YOU Bpeak, I listen. I have no predispositions against
any argument, you are free to Bay whatever you like. However, there are things that I like.
- If a card is important in the round, and you want me to read it, I suggest that you flag it and make it
sound important. Otherwise I may not read that evidence.
- overviews in the 2nr/2ar should explain the argument you are going for and why you are winning the
argument. Good explinations of link story are always good, and help me when evaluating and weighing
arguments in the debate.
- Wrestling jokes
Other than that the debate is yours, but I tend to think these things above should be done anyway. Have fun and I
picked Duke and Maryland in the finals of the NCAA tourney.
Yee Haw,
Don
q'
Bax,wiff
New York University
Years Aidstima 13
Rounds on topic: 70+
This trip will be my first appearance at the NDT and I vAah to extend oxigratWations to All those V&D are
participating. You are ambaundors from your Wicol. Chermh and respect that opportumty As gtudevu, you've
vAxired long and bard br this event and my SW is to hum effectively and match that ffi You deserve nothing
Ion. I've judged lots of national level rounds on this topic and look fWward to fimky cam, T. critiques, and
clever counterplans as much as well-structured Disads and case turns. AU arguments am given legitimacy until
I am given a reason to reject than, the thresbold for rejection vanes with the certainty of the chain of linlm and
biternal hnsk and the repugnancy of the paradign Intelligent strategies and selection, catching double-turns and
advocational inismas we RU marks of someone with a deeper understanding, Pi3ints of community conserim
like "risk of solvency", "intrinsicnass perms" and "the topic mandates afibeft- all still open to. d" in front of me".
I will reward speakers who can express their personality and humor and not rimply hnction like highspeed
dictation machines. Debaters with lives have fiftures. Debaien without lives have high therapy biHs. My pat
peeves: I-DON'T CURSEI I No debaters arguments are so intellectually superior that they justify cursing or
rudeness. At a naini um, nich rhetoric demeans your arguments and advocacy. At a mwdmum. it serves to
marginahze thou who are joined with you in this discourse through no choice of their own but instead the whim
of a computer program and 2-Strive for globocentric (nm-wxist, vonracist) language.
Don't be afraid to step out of the box (thanks to Shanahan fbr encouraging the practice). It is my deepest hope
that deW rs wW spend time deconstrucung Disads and the Bliallowness of our approach to can construction.
Cogent reasons do exist to not vote for low poralvibility Disads and counterplans that couldn't transipre but few
debaters we successfiffly articulating those comparisonsMoreover, please take a moment this weekend to remember those who compete in our game that cannot be with
us because they wodr, their schools have small budgets or they have classloads that make Nationals prohibitive.
Speak with someone that you do not know already and let them into your -circle" so the community connections
can emend after the final ballot.
Good luck Haw fun.
Jenny Barker
Assistant Coach
13 tournaments this year
UMKC
First year coaching
I am open to most arguments. If there is a critique in the debate I expect an explanation of the implications-do
not presume that I know what they are. I am not predisposed to general arguments about why counterplans are
bad. Although I will vote on the arguments if the Negative drops them or insufficiently answers them, I do not
like plan inclusive counterplans bad arguments or dispositionality bad arguments. I think the Affirmative has to
defend all of the plan. Explanations and comparisons of evidence are persuasive but I will read evidence also.
Issue specific uniqueness is preferred to general uniqueness, but I will entertain arguments about why your turn
is unique without it. That said- this does not go for solvency turns on the case. I am not persuaded by the
argument that discrimination is happening now so your turns are not unique- its a linear impact. Other than that
have fun and feel free to ask me specific questions.
Mike Bauer Ball State
I guess I would fit into the category of a narrative style judge as I look at
competing arguments and which team is supporting the best story. But, I'll evaluate
the round based upon what I'm told to evaluate or what is done in the debate, weigh
advantages vs. disadvantages, stock issues, plan vs. c-plan, well constructed and
explained critiques, whatever. Please do not take anything for granted. If you wish
to have an argument a voting issue tell me what and why. I will vote for the
negative if there are compelling arguments against the case without a disad. I relish
good case debate. Please clearly label decision rules as they are presented, I dislike
hidden d-rules presented in constructives which suddenly pop up in the last speech
and are then claimed as the end all be all. Some analysis to why something is a
decision making basis is also helpful to me. Either slow down for plan text or show
me plan text before the debate if your case is read fairly quickly.
The only affirmative or negative strategy I do not care for is 2ac case add ons.
Topicality is a voting issue to me. Please do not run topicality as a time suck, I
dislike junk T. positions.
Evidence is an important issue to me. I prefer quality to quantity. One good card is
as good or better than four or five mediocre cards. I may look at some evidence
after the debate. I do not like to look at stacks of cards after the round and re
debate the round in my own mind. If there is a key card you want me to evaluate
slow down for it and give it some solid analysis.
Please be clear on your tags, if you're going too fast for me I will tell you. I will
often times flow the tag and evidence. So if you're not clearly numbering refer to
the argument rather than the source. Do your normal thing and I'll tell you if I
cannot comprehend your delivery.
All I ask in cross examination is that all four debaters are not speaking at the same
time so I can understand the questions and answers.
Please be respectful of each other and me. I enjoy debates that mix the intensity of
the national tournament with humor and understanding of all the participants. I will
discuss my decision with you but I refuse to argue with individuals. I will reduce
speaker points for abusive discourse after the round.
Please feel free to ask any questions about my judging before the round.
PAUL BELLUS
University of Iowa
Tournaments: 3 Rounds: 12
Current experience on judging topic and resolution of debates (minimum experience this year: WARNING):
This yeaes topic has lent itself to a number of generic negative case takeouts. Even with substantial
harms tak6outs, the affirmative always seems to win that there are a number of individuals being discriminated
against in the status quo. Solvency takeouts seem to be resolved in the, same manner this year. Ile negative reads
a set of good solvency mitigators, but none ever seem to be absolute takeouts. Ile affirmative always seems to
win that a number of individuals (usually unquantified) can still effectively employ the law as a tool of recourse
against discriminating acts. This seems to be how all of the case debates get resolved at the end. Of course. the
affirmative is responsible to articulate the risk of solvency left and describe what is important about voting for
solving the harm and how they actually solve the harm. Affirmatives should not forget to extend the case.
This sets up certain standards then for the negative to win. First the negative needs to win an offensive
argument. But this is not enough. There needs to be a story why the case turn (backsliding for instance)
outwieghs the case advantage (e.g. more people are effected by the turn and why this may be true). Second, the
nature of affirmative advantages places a great burden on the amount of risk the negative needs to win
concerning a disadvantage. Discrimination is "BAD." This is a truism in my mind. I will not listen to
discrimination good arguments. WARNINGI! 11 As such, the disadvantage must have a compelling link
threshold and impact threshold for me to believe it outweighs the case advantage. Third, the standards for
evaluating disadvantages become less in the instance of a counterplan that captures most or all of the case
advantage. A small risk of a disadvantage in the instance of a mitigated case and a counterplan that solves for
part or all of the case (articulate masons why this is true) is an easy tie breaker.
Kritiks this year seem to be solvency takeouts. It may be my history of not voting very often on Kritiks
that they rarely get developed beyond the first tine of analysis that has corrupted my experience, but I have yet to
hear one that impacts into a case turn. If I do ... I hope there is some link magnification. The affirmative will
probably win some solvency to the case. No Kritik I have heard this year is an absolute takeout. This means the
impact of the Kritik has to be larger than the case solvency. This may not be true for language Kritiks and
epistomological Kritiks. The pre-fiat nature of those arguments establish ontological imperatives that act like
jurisdictional arguments for topicality.
Ile (notice only one WARNING!!!) policy option advocated by the negative has several burdens to
meeL First. the negative needs to provide warrants why the alternative policy solves the case harm as well
(evidence is required to support warrants-specific case harm/causality solvency evidence more persuasive) or
within reason (in lieu of the disadvantage) to warrant a negative ballot. Second, to force a choice, the negative
needs to prove thier option is more desirable. This requires the negative to win some level of offense against the
case in relation to the counterplan or status quo. Third, this is more a WARNING than a standard ... I do believe
INC acts of describing counterplan as dispostitional or conditional can be voting issues. Establishing the initial
premise that the negative gets more than one policy option has impact on the affirmative's argument choices.
Affirmative burdens: First, focus on the distinction between case solvency and counterplan solvency. You
should be able to draw a quantification or qualificaLion of the difference and why that matters. Second, be sure
to spend time assessing the risk associated with the net benefit and the solvency deficit. Drawing out this
comparison is important. Third, a permutation is ALL of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. Intrinsic
permutations and severe permutations may get you into trouble WARNING!! 1.
Topicality has become more prominent in my decisions. There are many good exclusive definitions that
clearly define what .protections", "amend" and "discrimination" mean. The grammatical precision of these terms
seem very important on this year's topic. The types of cases allowed under each term seem to influence the
direction of possible debates. YES1 potential abuse is a voting issue. A topical case either meets the
grammatical precision warranted by legal action or it stimulates good debate. Oftentimes, affirmatives write in
EXTRATOPICAL Oust another name for non-topical) planks into the plan. My advice would be-don't. 'May are
ripe for PICs and probably mean you aren't topical. YESH I do listen to extratopicality not a voting issue
debates. I think there are different kinds of extratopical action. You need to legitimate yours in liue of the
non-topicality claim and the fact it might be a voting issue. WARNING I!! The two second "we meet" argument
and the two second "you violate" argument is difficult for this old man to flow. Slow down on these claims so
my feeble old mind can process them.
2NC/lNR/IAR are the speeches where debaters must begin to assess the weight of claims in the debate.
Anything afterwards must be warrant by arguments advanced by opponents. 2AR suddenly picking out a part of
the case and making it the most important issue in the round, although it has been dropped and the I AR did not
claim as being the most important issue in the debate, sounds new to me. The 2NR should have the ability to
compare impacts versus this new 2AR claim. So, it is the burden of the last constructive speaker and the first
two rebuttalists to begin formulating the decision calculus for the debate.
Order of issues resolved:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Theory
Topicality
Case solvency (negative takeouts)
Case harm (negative takeouts)
Disadvantage or
5.
Kritik (if turn)
6.
7.
Counterplan solvency
Disadvantage
Kritik (if T/A)
I hope this helps to understand how I evaluate rounds.
Good luck.
_r
Michael R. Berry
Director of Debate
King's College
10 Tournaments
Numerous Years Coaching - Approximately 20 rounds judged
(1) DECISION MAKING PARADIGM - I considered myself a default policy maker. I really strive
to be as objective about arguments as a person can be but that does not mean that if you say anything
that my own prejudices and biases will not influence my perspective of the argument. I invoke some
procedural constraints on the debate. T is a voter and I have to evaluate which team did Ahe better
debating." I will vote for a team and against a team.
(2) ARGUMENTS - I prefer to hear debates that focus on the case with one or two well-linked disads
(but who doesn't). More teams this year seem to be doing a better job of debating the case. This is a
good thing. Maybe I am getting old but I find myself voting on presumption this year. I will not vote
on a risk of an aff. advantage. One goodunevidenced answer beats the hell out of 5 bad link cards. One
good link card beats the hell out of 10 bad answers (evidenced or not).
(3) KRITIKS - I am probably predisposed against a kritik but have voted for them. If your choose to
go for a kritik, you should (a) slow down, (b) impact why it is a voting issue and (c) be willing to spend
a lot of time explaining the argument, not just reading 1000 word cards and expecting me to make sense
of it. The bottom line is make an argument and I will listen to it.
(4) TOPICALITY - Most cases seem topical. I must see some clear abuse to vote on T.
(5) COUNTERPLANS - Surprisingly (not). CP's should be net beneficial. Other issues concerning
the CP are debatable. If a counterplan is not competitive then I default to the present system. If you
wish
me to do something else, you must CLEARLY articulate that disposition.
(6) FIAT - I have given a lot of thought to the concept of flat and how far it extends. Unfortunately, I
have
not come up with any really good answers. If you are making flat arguments (abuse, Clinton
popularity links, etc.) you should have a clear defense of your vision of fiat.
(7) STYLE - It is your responsibility to communicate to me. I generally do not read evidence after a
round unless there is a specific reason advocated by a debater to read a specific card. Saying "Read all
the evidence after the round " does not cut it. After judging a particular elim at the ADA national
tournament, I have decided to take a more activist role in making debaters clearer. I will warn you about
being clear to the best of my ability but if you are unclear, the argument advanced will be disregarded
throughout the debate unless restated in a coherent manner. Things I like to see in a round are (a)
debaters who think and are funny, (b) debaters who make evidence/story comparisons, (c) debaters who
are comprehensible (d) debaters who let their partners answer and ask their own questions. If you want
an example of a good debater, model yourself after Ryan Galloway.
THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND
I probably cannot flow as fast as you can talk even if you are being comprehensible.
I am better read on this topic than others in the past. (i.e., I have done more research) but I still
haven't read nearly as much as you have.
Cross reading cards will result in the evidence being tossed out. I mean the entire card. Also, you
will lose bunches of speaker points.
Think about your judges. We don't get to check answers and cards during the round like debaters
get to do. Watch us for non-verbal feedback.
The last two speeches are critical. Most debates are won or lost here.
Judging is subjective.
(8) PLEDGE - I will work as hard as you do in a round. I will try to flow everything you say if it is
comprehensible and to give you the fairest, most objective decision I can. I will explain my thinking
process as best as I can to you.
You must pledge to do your best and remember that all of this is for fun. These things can be very scant. If you
have more specific questions then, please ask.
I
david breshears university of texas - austin 40+ rounds this topic
i offer this philosophy as a brief insight into some peculiarities, knowledge of which might be helpful..
i'm voting aff more than ever. haven't really given much thought to the matter. s'pose it might be the topic area.
might also be that affirmatives are putting more thought into answering critical arguments. maybe the political
process disads have just sucked beyond repair. i'm also not sure that it matters much in any given round, but
seemed worth mentioning.
i've been persuaded toward the affirmative/conservative end of the counterplan theory spectrum this year (this
also may account for the aforementioned tendency). for example, debates over the legitimacy of fiating lower
court compliance have tended overwhelmingly toward the aff. i don't think aff s have done an outstanding job
defending the voting issue implications of the argument, but i've tended to resolve the argument in such a way
that a large solvency deficit is incurred by the negative. just something to keep in mind as you're j ivin' on the
net benefit in the 2nr.
topicality may be a voting issue at the ndt, but you still have to prove some degree of abuse (counterplan or
disad ground lost, abusive affirmative ground gained, or a potential "explosion" of the topic - complete with
examples). I don't know how "jurisdiction" is determined if not by demonstration of abuse. call me quirky.
i'd like to hear better impact comparisons in the last rebuttals. this is perhaps the most overplayed of laments,
but it's true. as an addendum to this request, i'd like to hear impact calculations and comparisons that take into
account the size of the original impact multiplied by the degree of link/solvency you think you're winning (as
opposed to the "any risk of link = full weight of the impact" jive i hear in most rounds).
as always, i think my role as a critic is open to debate. although phrases like "intellectual endorsement" and
"moral obligation" seem to imply a particular positioning of my subjectivity, these implications are rarely (if
ever) part of the discussion. i tend to default into policyrnaker mode if it's a straight-up counterplan/net-benefit
debate; that is, i assume the make-believe role of a policy wonk, assigned to bureaucratically evaluate competing
arguments per the rational-critical framework in which i have been inculcated (my political default in this mode
is set to liberal <max>). when critical arguments with "discursive implications" (whatever those might be again, seldom discussed) are advanced, it seems like some discussion of an alternate modality might be in order.
again, just a thought.
if you're aff against west georgia, be sure to answer Paizur'55.
BRENTBROSSMANN
DIRECTOR OF DEBATE
12 TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR
JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY
14 YEARS OF COACHING
50+ ROUNDS ON THE TOPIC
These are my predispositions. You can talk me out of any of them for a given round, but I thought you deserved
to know my "defaults."
Paradigm: I am generally a policymmaker, when left to my own devices. I have been virtually everything. If you
want a different paradigm, argue for it.
Topicality: I prefer the "better interpretation" as a topicality standard, but its up to you to determine what is
"better." In round abuse is infinitely more persuasive than potential abuse. The only topicality argument I have
liked on this topic is Wake's argument as to why a BFOQ is a defense, not a protection. Everything else has
seemed kind of silly. I can't remember 2NR going fbr T all year. My track record suggests I will vote for a good
topicality argument.
Counterplans: I love good counterplans. I hate plan inclusive counterplans, although I have been forced to vote
for a number of them this year. Counterplans seem intrinsically dispositional to me (the status quo, as defined by
the debaters, never disappears; if it is superior to the plan, the counterplan and the permutation, the status quo
remains a reason to vote negative). I guess all permutations are advocated (if the best policy in the round is the
perm, I'll vote aff). Topical counterplans are fine, but their inclusion seems to increase the need to protect plan
integrity. I hate extra-competitive advantages to counterplans (you shouldn't be able to capture their advantage
with a part of the counterplan dw does the plan), but I've yet to hear a 2AR do a good job with this argument.
I'm not a big fan of international fiat. I don't like utopian counterplans unless they have a great transitional
argument.
Krdiks: I have voted for negatives on kritiks about 40% of the time this year when negatives have gone hard for
them in 2NR. I will vote on pre-flat implications when they are won. Those that I judged in the past may be
shocked by this. At the very least, negatives are better are impacting these arguments in a way that makes sense
to me. Perhaps I have also changed as well.
Topic Specific Arguments: I have been confused by certain negative arguments this year. For example, the
argument that the plan increases the violation of Puerto Rican sovereignty because the T7 applies there does not
appear to be a particularly compelling argument. Similarly, I'm not sure why I should reject any otherwise
worthwhile plan because it doesn't increase recognition of intersectionality beyond die upheld by current courts.
If you can make these arguments into more persuasive appeals, go for it.
Strategic Debate: I like strategic debate. I am more than happy to watch you concede an argument to turn a lager
one. I encourage 2NR and 2AR to collapse the debate for me, although fairness demands that 2AR not make
unforeshadowed shifts. I am not a judge who loves reading cards or making my own connections on the flow.
The best way to get my ballot is to "write it fbr me" with a great final rebuttal (well grounded in the flow).
Other: Be nice. Be friendly. Be funny. Don't spit. Have fun.
"I
Adrienne Brovero - Northwestern University -Assistant Coach - 4th Year Coaching - 8 Tournaments - 35
Rounds
Any of the following issues are open to debate. What follows represents the "defaults" I have set in my mind.
Absent debate on a particular issue, I fall back on my "defaults."
Topicality - I will vote on well-thought out, well-dcbated T violations. I do not begrudge anyone strategic uses
of T such as time-suck extensions or the use of T to get disad links. On either side, it helps a lot to describe why
your interpretation is good for debate, and why their interpretation is not
Kritiks - I still haveril had too many rounds in which these arguments have made it into the 2NR. So, I am still
relatively inexperienced in deciding debates on these issues. A few things that could help me decide: First, slow
down. I have difficulty comprehending, never mind flowing, much of the literature kritik arguments are based in
when the evidence is read at Mach 5. Second, make an effort to explain your evidence, since I am not nearly as
familiar with this literature as you are. Third, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific
aff you are debating. Statements like "the kritik renders the aff meaningless" donl help me. 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? What would the plan end up doing if the kritik turns its
solvency? I have a very hard time voting on abstract arguments when little effort has been made to apply them
to the specific aff being debated.
Evidence - I try to get down tagtcite/some words for every card. I very much appreciate those who make this
easier by reading clearly (as well as partners who notice the judge is confused and prompt their partner to make
things clearer). I also appreciate debaters who make it a point to evaluate and compare evidence in the debate. I
actually do pay attention to quals. I caret stand anonymous pronounstspeakers in evidence (such as "she says"
without an identification of who "she" is, or FDCH evidence which in reality was spoken by some government
official). I also do not like to have to read the unhighlighted portions of the evidence. I try to only do it in 2
circumstances: 1) When the content of the evidence is challenged- By this, I mean more than "It doesn't say that"
I will read the unlughlighted parts if teams are specifically challenging that authoes conclusions or assumptions
made in that evidence, or if a team specifically applies arguments made in the unhighlighted portions against the
evidence. 2) If I am trying to identify the referent for a pronoun used in the highlighted portion of the evidence.
In this second circumstance, I will not evaluate arguments made in those sections, I will simply identify whom
"she" or "he" or "it" is. What does this mean for you? 1) Make sure if your ev has reasons that you want to have
evidenced, make sure you read them. If you only read the claim, then you only have a claim. 2) If you hand me
evidence to read after the round, please make it clear to me which parts of the card were actually read in the
debate.
Fiat - Unless someone tells me otherwise in the debate, fiat is the least amount of persuasion necessary to pass
the aff plan. Outcomes can be fiated, but not the process. These are questions that probably ought to be
debated out when running process disads/counterplans.
Counterplans - I generally lean negative on all those "abusive" or "crazy" counterplans: topical, plan-inclusive,
exclusion, conditional/dispositional, international fiat, agent, etc. This not to say I woret side with the aff if the
aff does a good job of articulating why it is abusive. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where
the counterplan nin is abusive at multiple levels. At the point at which the negative has to fend off multiple
reasons it is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Too many aff teams I have watched have
focused solely on one theoretical objection, which gives the negative one easy target to throw their theory blocks
at. The aff also needs to explain an impact to their theory arguments. Both counterplan and permutation texts
should be written out. If the aff decides to make an unscripted permutation in the 2AC, it should be written out
MvIEDIATELY after the speech. (And even then, I am still open to negative arguments about what the exact
wording was if they disagree). Absent clarification, at the end of the debate, the existence of the counterplan in
the 2NR does not mean the status quo goes away - the neg has two viable worlds (counterplan and status quo) as
does the aff (plan and permutation). I also think the statement "They ran a CP, presumption goes aff," without
explanation, is a bunch of hooey.
RENIINDER (since I usually forgot this by the time I reached the bottom of the page) - These are just defaults. I
can be persuaded.
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY FOR JON BRUSCHKE
Many rounds, many tournaments
I.
WHEN IN DOUBT (and I usually have lots of doubts), I WILL VOTE FOR THE TEAM THAT
EXPLAINS THEIR ARGUMENT IN MORE DEPM In good debates, usually the evidence really does clash,
the arguments do conflict, and nobody drops anything really important. To break the tie, I will usually pull the
trigger for the team that explained why their argument was right in more depth or the team that took more time
trying to compare the evidence.
2. 1 HATE HOSTILE CX. It is unpleasant to watch and never gets anyone anywhere. Don't get in a screaming
match and if you find yourself in one, keep in mind, that I will credit the first person to pull back for
restoring order.
3. 1 WON'T CALL FOR CARDS UNLESS YOU TELL ME WHY I SHOULD. So you know, "Their cards
suck -- call for them after the round" does NOT count as a reason. If each team is offering a different
interpretation of the same card, I'll call for the card. Otherwise, I won't spend my time reading the cards after
the round to find out the things that you should have been talking about during the round.
4. IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, TELL A JOKE AND HAVE FUN. Debate is a good activity, but not if you're
wound up so tight that you aren't enjoying yourself. There is no professional debate; you are only doing this
because you like it. Don't lose sight of that.
Free evidence!!! All of the following are actual quotes. Feel free to use them in your debate rounds.
DOLLAR COLLAPSE IMMINENT
J. F. Smith, 'Me Coming Currency Collgpse, 1981 "The dollar will be rendered utterly worthless, probably
within 3 years."
SMITH IS QUALIFIED
Colin Deal, Author of Christ Returns by 1988, 1981 "One of the most astounding books of this generation!"
CRITIQUES ARE BAD
Hedy Lamaar, on the her deathbed: "This is too deep for me."
DEATH NOT UNIQUE
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"If someone is going to kill me, they are going to kill me."
MARXISM WRONG
Widow of Karl Marx
"Yes, we were happy enough, but I wash dear Karl could have spent some time acquiring capital instead of
merely
writing about it."
PHILSOPOHY BAD
Thomas Macaulty, 1859:
"The more I read [about Socratesl the less I wonder that they Rgisoned him."
To discover the world's greatest undiscovered rock band, check out:
http:Hcommfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/mgb%20doc.htrnI
Nfichael "Bear" Bryant, DoF
Weber State University
19 years judging policy debate
41 rounds on this topic
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY
Updated for 1999
General Preferences:
1. Fast, clean debate. Debaters having fim. Having fim judging debates.
2. 1 really enjoy debates where the debaters seem to have the capacity to raise above the smoke and "sell"
the superiority of their evidence and analysis. I hate having to vote for reverse voters 3. Debaters should keep an eye on my reactions - I am very easy to read. I will certainly let you know if I
can't understand. I think I can flow pretty well, but if clarity becomes a problem, I won't fake it. Please
attempt clarity when you hear me ask for it.
4. 1 really love this topic - most of you would be surprised how much of the basic literature I've been able
to look at, so don't be afraid to "get down" on why your ev's better.
I vote affirmative a little over 60% of the time . Despite this fact, there are many dispositions of mine
which might be of interest to negatives:
1. Topicality
I'm willing to pull the trigger on Topicality. Don't feel that you have to kick all other arguments. The best
topicality positions revolve around the distinctions between procedures, substantive protections, and
remedies. Legal literature establishing inclusive/exclusive brightlines is most persuasive. Affit-matives
critiquing legal interpretation need to be careful of Title VII solvency implications. I'm not usually very
sympathetic to generic cries to dismiss topicality as a voter.
2. Kritiks
I think I am very sympathetic to the concept of kritiks, even though it seems as though they are seldom
defended very well in front of me. Few folks seem to offer me very sophisticated explanations of why they
are truly a priori. I am not very favorably inclined to vote on the need to punish non-severe linguistic
expressions on the part of debaters. I am probably fairly receptive to almost any other form of kritik,
provided a substantial explanation, particularly on the implication level. I seem to most often vote on a
kritik that ends up as a clear net benefit for a counterplan.
3. Solvency
I believe there's a tremendously rich field of literature on substantive problems with placing much
emphasis on Title VII mechanisms. Granted tinkering with the legislation is usually marginally preferable
to the status quo, but I often find these arguments to be under-utilized as specific kritik applications and
counterplan net-benefits. I am open to being convinced to reject current bureaucratic and legal procedures
in favor of approaches which emphasize self-agency and collective possibilities.
4. Counterplans
I love them. I require negatives to carefully wade through theoreticals, yet I am seldom inclined to vote on
disguised reverse voters. Recently, I've been extremely disappointed with affirmative approaches to
debating competition. Simply saying "Do Both!" doesn't do much for me. I prefer a careful focus on
debating competition which is based in application of literature. Affs trying to turn the advantages of the
counterplan would be wise to emphasize the permutation implication of such arguments. Solvency deficit
is seldom an absolute argument, but instead, just another element in determining how much net benefit is
left in voting for the counterplan as opposed to the permutation.
5. Disadvantages
While I don't really like the low-risk, generic net benefits (most notably, Clinton/GOP scenarios), I am far
too-often forced to vote for them. I put heavy emphasis on strict analysis of uniqueness, which needs to be
based in the best possible literature. One good card, replete with real explanations, is not always trumped
by three Lexis-Nexis blurbs from this morning. I am willing to vote for either economic collapse or de
development, based off the ev and the arguments. I retract any past denouncement of socialism or
movement positions. I am sympathetic to theoretical and evidenced arguments on the implication of low
risk reasoning, but often find that to be a sword that cuts two ways.
V
Pete Bsumek five tournaments attended this year
James MadLwn University ten years coaching &judging
Much like everyday life (as if debate is not everyday life for us). when I judge academic debate I am
not always sure why I do what I do. I have, at least, been able to come up with the following self
observations, desires, and gripes - I hope they help.
*1 think you should argue whatever and however you want. I like innovative arguments and styles.
I like debaters that treat me as a person (a citizen). I prefer not to act as a flow machine that turns
into a technocratic decision maker at the end of the round. I will applaud any team that attempts to
break away from the technocratic, missile envying ("sub C impact") ethos that is choking our
communal pond. I think critiques are great fordebate and would like to we them applied to debates
"deeper structures." I am not so found of critiques that can be summed up like this: They said a bad
word; reject them. In my opinion, policy debate has been enamored with Hernuum Kahn and his kind
for far too long. Our argument style (ethos. pathos and logos) has been so thoroughly digested by
these kinds of technocratic discourses that we have become part of the digestion ftwk itself (see;
Carol Colm *Slick'cms, GlicVcms, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and
How We Learned to Pat the Bomb,' D.M. June 1987. p 17.). Most critiques and Kritiks am simply
more of the same. I wonder if anyone here has ever gone with their gut, voted with their heart,
thought with their groin, or been wrong headed? I wonder if all arguments require logical support?
I wonder what a heart felt appeal would look like in an academic debate round?
*My vote is fiat. I will assutrie flat "tradidoml debatit flat" simply does not exht. The plan is a
Olan, an idea, a discourse, a rhetoric, a proposed policy, a proposed way of being, an actual way of
6ing, an example of a way of b;;;f--any damn thing you want to call (make) it. It is real, it is not
pretend real. DA stones about
ntation are usually absurd. They merely reiterate inherency
and deny deliberative rhetoric its role as a shaper of value and policy. This does not take away
negative ground. I am ready to hear arguments about practicality and impracticality, about idealism
and realism, about efficiency and waste, etc. Thus, given a choice I would rather inhabit a space
"inside" the should question (This house believes ... ), than exist on the outside of that question as
an all seeing, "Truth" determining technocrat. Which is not to say that I will not vote on an
implemwation DA. On the other hw4 it does me= that I mn ready to hear why such arguments
am inappropriate and/or detrirnental to our forum. Political resource trade-off arguments W= less
silly, though they am not as appealing as the "this plan is a utopian pipe dream* kinds of arguments,
Then again, I wonder what the value of strong leadership is these days, and more importantly who
debaters are wWWg to suggest that leader is, and even more importantly whether that lead is inside
the debate round or outside the debate round. Grassroots anyone? How much is your time worth?
*1 like fiw debates with nice people. I will do my best to be fair. I am, howevex, basically a 1M
and irresponsible person (a quasi-paranoid marxiod misanthrope who loves people and pretty much
believes that the Now Deal was a good deal), my mind can itnd does wander. and I write slow.
Therefore, the best way to get the fiat stamp, with high speak= points, is to be clcar~ I will try to let
you know when I am not undemanding you--at the NDT watch for non-verbal signals. You can
also help me and yourself by not being afraid to leave the line by line (missiWtarget envy) and
debate the key issues. You stiould probably repeat key points; i.e. in the introduction of your
rebuttal, and then again, on the line by line. I do not believe that "cardsm are arguments (information
LS not argumentation). Them may be good arguments in them-good tag lines can mean a lot. I often
rank I AC& wid I NCs who speak with clarity and style higher than their comrades, I guess I have an
unsubstantiated fear that the quality of dme speeches is going down hill, Thesis statements at the
beginning of arguments (disadvantages, critiques, case dump&, counterplans, etc.) seem like the
easiest and simplest way to facilitate clarity--arguincrit extenders who retell the story of the
argument before line by line extension seern to get higher points. 7bis is especially important when
topicality is the inue, an issue I will and have voted on this year. More or less, I believe debaters
could say more by choosing to go slower. I seem to 1pive affirmatives a lot of latitude on
POMW*60W. I think a lot of plans have extra-topical puts. If you have any quesdons fed free to
ask. Good Luck and congatulations on another year of hard wodL
I
THE BURCH PHILOSOPHY
To start off with, Debate is a game and is won by the most creative and persuasive team. I believe in
certain guidelines although I try to be tabula rasa. For instance I believe that topicality is a voting issue
but will listen to arguments counter to that. I have judged at Harvard, Wake and West Georgia this year.
While my decisions may not always be appreciated or accepted by all they are my decisions. I take my job
in the back of the room very seriously and feel that I make every attempt to make a good decision. To win
my ballot you simply must convince me that you have won the round. Do not let me decide you win, tell
me in the late rebuttals why you win the debate round.
Any questions that one may have can be asked before the round. I look to judge topicality as a kritik in
that I like standards to have implications as to why I should accept one definition over the other. Kritiks
should be top heavy and spoon fed to me. I am not a philosophy major or George K! so using abbreviated
terms at 100 miles per hour will only disappoint you in the end.
Daryl E. Burch
I
Brian Campbell ,
Southern Illinois University
I'm a Libra. I debated 1 year of NIDT and three years of CEDA. I've judged 50 + rounds on this topic, a lot at
regional CEDA tournaments. I'm not easily offended by any type of argument. I'll tell you my personal likes, but
this should not be an absolute guide to get my ballot. I like critical arguments, but the argumentation and
evidence should be clear. I don't care as much for Clinton Disads, but if you choose to run one, make sure the
story is clear and supported VAth good evidence. Counterylans are O.K. Make sure they are relevant, i.e. get
yourself a net benefit. Also, make your theory arguments well. Togicalit is something I don't vote for often.
Basically, it's hard to convince me that reasonably topical cases are not topical through some play on multiple
definitions. But, again, if you feel the need, go for it and make reasoning and theory clear. Everything else is
dealer's choice. I am open minded and like to hear new, inventive arguments. There's a definite lack of
entertainment in debate rounds. Personal narratives, jokes, or other attempts to animate the round muld be
appreciated and promptly rewarded. I always make a better decision Men I'm having fun.
Judging Philosophy
Judge: Chandra
Affiliation: Wheaton
I like most types of arguments.
T--- I evaluate ground abuse by seeing if Neg demonstrate (rather than vaguely mentioning) where the abuse
occurs. If its in terms of precision of language I expect good distinctions from both sides.
CP --- You can run most any type you like (including plan inclusive, cping out uniqeness, international, etc.) but
if you make wild claims it's helpful to have solvency. This of course is all arguable by the affirmative.
DA --- Run what you like
Critiques --- I think a lot of critiques are germane to this year's topic. One's I've found less persuasive- are those
decrying the Aff for categorizing (critique of difference) since we all categorize.
Cases --- The only cases I've found unappealing are those that seem to trivialize discrimination by claiming to
solve all discrimination by making minor changes in things like language. It's an affront to those of color (or of
any intellect) to claim that cultural/ individual habits and practices are so easily remedied. I also find cases that
make issues like sexual harassment important primarily for reasons of national security or some other tangential
issue annoying (though, oddly enough I've voted for them since it's not my job to make arguments for the neg).
None of this, i guess has to do with my voting against a case from the outset or even at the end but does tell you
my biases.
Michele Choe's Judging Philosophy
General Description:
It's my first year out and I study race, rhetoric, feminism, and cultural studies at the University of Iowa. My
biggest debate influences include Jon Bruschke, Jeanine Congalton, Josh Hoe, and Laura Heider -- who is one
of my closest friends. Take those influences for what you will. The entire time I debated, I was a 2AC.
Objectivism can kiss my ass. Like most judges, I too claim that I try not to intervene and always, always go by
my flow, but let's not forget this IS a persuasive activity. Usually I will call for any cards that the debaters
emphasize, even if I'm convinced that I know exactly what the cards say (or don't say). One little confession: I
love debaters that just' straight turn Clinton.
More Specifically...
T: I'm pretty liberal and all for challenging dominant and uncritical interpretations.
Cp's: No preferences here. I think they're great, only I'm not the judge you want in the back of the room if the
debate breaks down to technical theory arguments.
K's: Love 'em, however that presents a double edged sword. I think that if you aren't strong at debating Ks, just
don't run them. Because Ks are sophisticated, complex, and subversive arguments, poor runs only further
disempower their strategic purpose against debate's linear argumentation paradigm. Don't delegitimate them
further. Also, I'm skeptical of most link stories on Ks.
Everything else is fair game.
Elisia Cohen
Wake Forest University 2 nd year debate assistant over 50 rounds judged this year.
My role as a judge: I try to use the least minimal means when examining my flow and evaluating
arguments.
I'll vote quickly on dropped, warranted voting issues. How do I evaluate a close round fairly? Generally I try
to
reverse the sides of the teams making arguments to evaluate them fairly. For example, it may be a cheap
shot, but
if the other team was making it would I vote on it? I do this to check myself to make sure that I am judging
both
teams fairly. I stick to evaluating the arguments in the last rebuttals and then going back to see where they
originate. Its your job to extend your best arguments from the I nr to the 2n, not mine. Similarly, I'm harsh
on
new args. in the 2ar. Its the 2ar's job to argue why the 2nr's arguments are new + should not be evaluated.
I generally enjoy judging, I've judged a lot this year and try to be as much on top of the arguments as I can.
2. Presumption: Negative. Unless there is a CP. Then debate it.
3. Topicality: Only voted on it twice this year. I like to hear why the interpretation is good/bad for debate. It
should be an evidenced interpretation in the context of the resolution. Please tell me why this case should be
limited out if it is predictable within the literature. Jurisdiction. As a word is not an argument. I rarely vote
on
extra-t or effect -t without an in-round "abuse" argument being made that is unanswered or reasonable.
4 Evidence: Use some. The following are not arguments: Extend Cohen 99,more evidence, Cohen 99. When
Iar/InT make these types of evidence/cite claims I am lenient on the last rebuttalists to anwer them. Please
tell me
which piece of Cohen I ac evidence is important to look at. Evidence I can understand I will read and
compare,
evidence I can't, I won't. I am unlikely to interrupt you when I am on a panel. I rarely read 2ar evidence. If
you
choose to read it you should tell me why its relevant to the debate and fair. Challenges to
authenticity/accuracy of
evidence should be advanced with a means of the determining that. IE Have the original article, book if you
want to make the challenge. If you lose an evidence/ethical challenge I will vote against the losing party
without
looking at the rest of the debate.
S. Cross-ex: Used correctly can be a time to interrogate evidence, introduce moregenerally I think that it is a
binding source of advocacy. I will gladly clear up what I heard you say in the CX if I think it is necessary.
IE. I
heard the CP to be conditional.
6. Style/Delivery: I have incomprehensible theory argumentsI can't flow quickly enough when this happens and
am unlikely to fill in the blanks.
Other nuggets of wisdom:
Kritiks: Slow down. I'll listen to 'em. I try to keep up with some of the postmodem arguments but too often I
hear
poor debates where the following things are not discussed: A. ne interpretation of the ballot.: judge's assent,
affirmation of an idea, dissent? Does it do anything? B. Fiat: My ballot came with no fiat want, but why does
this
mean that I should compare the plan to an ideal and not the status quo? What happens when there's a CP? C.
What
are the implications of a performative contradiction? Is a philosphical contradiction the same as a double turn?
D.
Whow much of solvency does this argument undercut? What if it just makes solvency less probable? Why
should I
vote neg, any way? (P.S. I give high points to debaters who address these issues for me and I am likely to
vote
aff if the neg. doesn't develop the answers to these questions)
Offensive language: I am no thought policewoman. However, I do think that you should play nice. Personally, I
think that there is language that offends, and language that is oppressive. Continually marginalizing women in
this
activity by referecing us as 'he' or 'his'is unacceptble. I will lower your points. In my opinion when you do this
you
are not communicating as well as you could be to your audience (me) and you aren't giving other debaters in the
round
the respect that they deserve. That said, you should attempt to correct yourself when you slip. Often an apology
solves
the harm done by unintentional behavior. What happens when evidence is racist (etc.)? Please debate the
implications.
Counterplans: I'm in the Ross/Skiermont camp about dispositionality and PICs. Simply saying that
dispositionality
means "when you turn it we're stuck with it" seems to be a debate agreement that makes little sense to me. If
they are
turned then they are not net-beneficial. You can debate whether or not the perm is a policy option. Sever perms
and
intrinsicness permutations should be justified by the nature of the counterplan or other theory arguments. I think
PICS
are fine if there is a clean net benefit and not a huge solvency gap. That said, I've voted on fiat abuse onceso
have
some answers. Fundamentally, I think reciprocity is important in the fiat and CP game, but I'll listen to all your
args.
Stock Issues: I rarely vote on just solvency takeouts. But its probably because most debaters don't make the zero
risk/presumption arguments that I find persuasive.
Additional info about me: Absent a risk calculus I find compelling, I will take the impact (harm) evidence you
read
for what its worth and multiply it by the amount of link (solvency) you are winning to decide the debate. P.S. I
don't
tape rounds, and won't vote against you for clipping a card without an in-round objection. I do expect you to
mark
your evidence as to what has been read in the round. If I think that you are not speaking well/slurring your cards,
I will
decrease your points.
4'