Samuels, Phil. - Description

2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Table of Contents (Update 3) Table of Contents (Update 3) ...................................................................................................... 1 Abbott, Blake ............................................................................................................................... 6 Achten, Greg ................................................................................................................................ 8 Arnett, Dave................................................................................................................................. 9 Atchison, Jarrod ......................................................................................................................... 10 Averbeck, Josh........................................................................................................................... 11 Barnes, Andrew ......................................................................................................................... 12 Barnes, Heather ......................................................................................................................... 14 Barouch, Tim ............................................................................................................................. 15 Baxter-Kauf, Kate ...................................................................................................................... 16 Bauschard, Stefan ...................................................................................................................... 17 Bellon, Joe ................................................................................................................................. 19 Bittner, Brian ............................................................................................................................. 20 Borden, Kara .............................................................................................................................. 22 Bowman, Pam ............................................................................................................................ 24 Brar, Kip .................................................................................................................................... 25 Breshears, David ........................................................................................................................ 27 Brigham, Matt ............................................................................................................................ 28 Brovero, Adrienne ..................................................................................................................... 29 Bsumek, Pete ............................................................................................................................. 31 Burk, Chris................................................................................................................................. 32 Butt, Neil ................................................................................................................................... 34 Carver, Joseph ........................................................................................................................... 36 Ceren, Omri ............................................................................................................................... 38 Choi, Eun Young ....................................................................................................................... 40 Cisneros, David ......................................................................................................................... 42 Coleman, Kerry ......................................................................................................................... 43 Coulter, Ben ............................................................................................................................... 44 D'Amico, Steve .......................................................................................................................... 45 Deatherage, Scott ....................................................................................................................... 46 DeLaughder, Ken....................................................................................................................... 48 DeVault, Christopher ................................................................................................................. 49 Doris, Kathleen .......................................................................................................................... 51 Downing, Jamie ......................................................................................................................... 52 Dunn, Matt ................................................................................................................................. 53 Dunn, Nate ................................................................................................................................. 54 Dutcher, Jim............................................................................................................................... 56 Dutcher, Mike ............................................................................................................................ 57 Eastwood, Wally........................................................................................................................ 58 Eber, Michael............................................................................................................................. 60 Ellis, Andy ................................................................................................................................. 62 Ellsworth, Seth........................................................................................................................... 63 Evans, Kirk ................................................................................................................................ 64 Feldman, Jonah .......................................................................................................................... 65 1 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Fitzmier, Dan ............................................................................................................................. 66 Forslund, Eric ............................................................................................................................ 67 Foy, John ................................................................................................................................... 69 Frappier, Glen ............................................................................................................................ 70 Galloway, Ryan W. ................................................................................................................... 72 Garen, Adam .............................................................................................................................. 73 Garen, Geoff .............................................................................................................................. 75 Gerber, Matt............................................................................................................................... 76 Gonzalez, Joshua ....................................................................................................................... 77 Gorelick, Nate ............................................................................................................................ 79 Gottbreht, Scotty........................................................................................................................ 80 Green, Justin .............................................................................................................................. 81 Green, R.J. ................................................................................................................................. 83 Grove, Jairus .............................................................................................................................. 85 Guevara, Omar G ....................................................................................................................... 86 Guevara, Veronica M. ............................................................................................................... 87 Hall, Michael ............................................................................................................................. 89 Hall, Sherry................................................................................................................................ 90 Hamrick, Kevin ......................................................................................................................... 92 Hanson, Jim ............................................................................................................................... 93 Hardy, Aaron ............................................................................................................................. 95 Harris, Scott ............................................................................................................................... 98 Harris, Tasha .............................................................................................................................. 99 Hausrath, Barry........................................................................................................................ 100 Heidt, David............................................................................................................................. 101 Helwich, David Cram .............................................................................................................. 102 Herndon , Scott ........................................................................................................................ 104 Hester, Mike ............................................................................................................................ 105 Hoe, Joshua B. ......................................................................................................................... 106 Holbrook, Sarah ....................................................................................................................... 107 Holland, Shannon .................................................................................................................... 108 Hood, Paul ............................................................................................................................... 109 Hovden, Jan ............................................................................................................................. 110 Irizarry, Frank .......................................................................................................................... 111 Janas, Mike .............................................................................................................................. 112 Johnson, Paul ........................................................................................................................... 114 Kall, Aaron .............................................................................................................................. 116 Katsulas, John .......................................................................................................................... 118 Keenan, Vik ............................................................................................................................. 119 Kelly, Casey............................................................................................................................. 122 Kerr, Paul ................................................................................................................................. 124 Kimball, Judd........................................................................................................................... 126 Kirk, Justin............................................................................................................................... 128 Kish, Gerald R., Ph.D. ............................................................................................................. 129 Koehle, Joe .............................................................................................................................. 130 Kraus, Alyse ............................................................................................................................ 131 2 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kuswa, Kevin .......................................................................................................................... 133 Lacy, JP ................................................................................................................................... 134 Lancaster, Michelle ................................................................................................................. 137 Lavelle, Katie........................................................................................................................... 138 Lee, Ed ..................................................................................................................................... 139 Leek, Jayson ............................................................................................................................ 140 Leeper, Karla ........................................................................................................................... 141 Leong, Andrew ........................................................................................................................ 142 Louden, Allan .......................................................................................................................... 143 Lupo, Jon Paul ......................................................................................................................... 144 Lyle, Jim .................................................................................................................................. 145 Mancuso, Steve ........................................................................................................................ 149 Mannino, Piero ........................................................................................................................ 150 Matheson, Calum ..................................................................................................................... 151 Maritato, Jimbo........................................................................................................................ 152 Marty, Jillian ............................................................................................................................ 153 Massey, Jackie ......................................................................................................................... 154 Maurer, Sam ............................................................................................................................ 155 McBride, Brian ........................................................................................................................ 156 McCartney, Jonathan ............................................................................................................... 158 McDonald, Kelly ..................................................................................................................... 159 McIntosh, Chris ....................................................................................................................... 161 Mika, Jason .............................................................................................................................. 162 Mitchell, Gordon ..................................................................................................................... 164 Moore, Matt ............................................................................................................................. 165 Moore, S.J. ............................................................................................................................... 166 Morales, Tristan ....................................................................................................................... 167 Morgan-Parmett, Justin ........................................................................................................... 168 Morris, Eric .............................................................................................................................. 169 Morrison, Cate ......................................................................................................................... 170 Nelson, Sam ............................................................................................................................. 171 Newnam, Bill ........................................................................................................................... 172 Newton, Melissa ...................................................................................................................... 173 Nielson, Toni ........................................................................................................................... 174 Nix, Elisha ............................................................................................................................... 175 O’Donnell, Tim ....................................................................................................................... 176 Odekirk, Scott .......................................................................................................................... 180 Olney, Charles ......................................................................................................................... 181 Panetta, Edward ....................................................................................................................... 183 Partlow, Sarah .......................................................................................................................... 184 Patrice, Joe ............................................................................................................................... 185 Perkins, Dallas ......................................................................................................................... 186 Peters, Donny........................................................................................................................... 187 Petit, Louis ............................................................................................................................... 188 Pfister, Damien ........................................................................................................................ 189 Pointer, Steve ........................................................................................................................... 191 3 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Pomorski, Mike ....................................................................................................................... 192 Powers, Shawn......................................................................................................................... 193 Quinn, Robbie.......................................................................................................................... 194 Ramachandrappa, Naveen ....................................................................................................... 195 Rao, Anand .............................................................................................................................. 197 Register, David ........................................................................................................................ 198 Regnier, Jason .......................................................................................................................... 199 Repko, Will.............................................................................................................................. 200 Richey, Kate ............................................................................................................................ 202 Rief, John J. ............................................................................................................................. 203 Rollins, Joel ............................................................................................................................. 205 Rubino, Kathryn ...................................................................................................................... 207 Russell, Jason........................................................................................................................... 208 Saindon, Brent ......................................................................................................................... 209 Samuels, Phil. .......................................................................................................................... 210 Schatz, Joe ............................................................................................................................... 211 Schrader, Brian ........................................................................................................................ 212 Schwartz, Rae Lynn ................................................................................................................. 213 Shackelford, Michael ............................................................................................................... 214 Shalmon, Dan .......................................................................................................................... 215 shanahan .................................................................................................................................. 217 Sharp, Jon ................................................................................................................................ 218 Sherwood, Ken ........................................................................................................................ 219 Silber, Marissa ......................................................................................................................... 220 Simonson, Lindy...................................................................................................................... 221 Slusher, Eric............................................................................................................................. 223 Smith, Ross .............................................................................................................................. 225 Smith-Williams, Abi................................................................................................................ 227 Snider, Sarah ............................................................................................................................ 228 Solt, Roger ............................................................................................................................... 230 Stables, Gordon ....................................................................................................................... 231 Stahl, Greta .............................................................................................................................. 232 Staiti, David ............................................................................................................................. 234 Stannard, Matt ......................................................................................................................... 235 Starks, LaTonya ....................................................................................................................... 236 Sternhagen, Fred ...................................................................................................................... 237 Stevenson, Ron ........................................................................................................................ 239 Storey, Ian ................................................................................................................................ 240 Strait, Paul ............................................................................................................................... 241 Strange, Ken ............................................................................................................................ 243 Strauss, David .......................................................................................................................... 245 Sullivan, John .......................................................................................................................... 247 Symonds, Adam....................................................................................................................... 248 Taylor, James “JT” .................................................................................................................. 249 Tews, Richard .......................................................................................................................... 250 Thomas, Greg .......................................................................................................................... 251 4 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thomas, James Churchill ........................................................................................................ 252 Thomas, Robert ....................................................................................................................... 255 Thompson, Jacob ..................................................................................................................... 256 Topp, Sarah .............................................................................................................................. 258 Trautman, Todd ....................................................................................................................... 260 Turner, John ............................................................................................................................. 261 Varda, Scott ............................................................................................................................. 262 Vats, Anjali .............................................................................................................................. 263 Vega, Matt ............................................................................................................................... 265 Vermitsky, John ....................................................................................................................... 266 Verney, Danielle ...................................................................................................................... 268 Waldinger, Patrick ................................................................................................................... 269 Walters, Heather ...................................................................................................................... 271 Warner, Ede ............................................................................................................................. 272 Watson, Hays ........................................................................................................................... 273 Webster, Christy ...................................................................................................................... 274 Weigler, Jacob ......................................................................................................................... 275 Weiner, Jake ............................................................................................................................ 276 Wenzlaff, Sue .......................................................................................................................... 277 Westerfield, Zach..................................................................................................................... 278 Wiley, Liz ................................................................................................................................ 279 Wiese, Danielle ........................................................................................................................ 280 Witte, Erin ............................................................................................................................... 281 Vegparian, Varant .................................................................................................................... 282 Zisman , Ruth .......................................................................................................................... 284 Zompetti, Joseph ...................................................................................................................... 286 5 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Abbott, Blake Wake Forest First and foremost, I enjoy debate, no matter what debate is involved. I think that debate is a wonderful game that can include many different styles and techniques. All of them should be welcome within the forum we’ve created. Whether it wins the ballot, however, is another story entirely. While I do have certain personal preferences for what types of debates I personally enjoy watching more than others, I will do my best to leave those preferences out of my judging paradigm. In other words, if both teams debate the plan in a “traditional fiat” sense, I’m more than happy to go that route. If, however, the teams want to engage in so-called “non-traditional” debate, then I am just as happy to utilize “alternative” ways to evaluate the round. Ultimately, it’s your round. Have fun, and feel free to run what you want. I do ask, however, that you tell me where to vote and why. If this isn’t done at all, I may be forced to fall back to my defaults, so for educational benefit, here are some of my defaults: Topicality — Generally speaking, an aff has got to be topical (this is the case whether there is a plan or not). Now what exactly it means for an aff to be topical is something that is up for debate. If you view the resolution differently, explain that and why it’s a good interpretation of the resolution. If you want to kritik the rez on the aff, then do so, but if you’re being called out on T, explain why and how this kritik of the rez either should be seen as topical or is best for debate. I think the best standard for competing T interpretations is which one is better for debate. If given no other standard for evaluation, I’ll default to ground, but any number of standards can give you mileage on the T debate if it’s sufficiently defended. Oh, and if you’re going for T in the 2nr, go for it only, please. Don’t worry about the other stuff. If you win T, you don’t need to worry about the other stuff, and if you go for the other stuff, you won’t have time to do what you need to do to win T. Disads — I prefer specific claims on disadvantages to overarching, overwhelmingly non-unique ones. If the link is simply “an energy policy will hurt bush’s capital,” then I’m not very willing to give you a lot on the link. If, however, you can either read evidence or tell a good story about how the specific energy policy that the aff is running would hurt bush’s capital (or whatever the link is), then you get much more credit. Note: you don’t have to have a card on it for the claim to make sense. If your link or uniqueness claim is intuitive and makes sense, I can just as easily give that weight as I could to specific cards that take into account the aff’s actions. And please, for the love of all that is good, DO IMPACT WORK!! I’m not playing here, if you just say, “extend the impact,” I will not be very happy with you. You gots to spend time explaining the impact and doing some impact comparison. I have voted on impact calculus alone in so many rounds, it’s not even funny. I also increase speaker points for those who do good impact analysis. Counterplans — I like counterplans. I’m a bigger fan of well thought out, specific CPs, but if you feel like running XO or your agent CP, that’s fine. If you’re gonna run a generic CP, though, make sure that your explanation is tailored to the aff you’re hitting. Generally, unless a big to-do is made about it on theory, I will usually default neg on dispo/conditionality theory. PICs is a toss-up. Many times I’m sympathetic to affs, but I can flow neg on it just as easily. This may sound obvious, but it all depends on how the round goes down. K’s — Kritiks are fun stuff generally, but the biggest problem is that people are way too generic. Don’t just say, “They’re the state, and that’s bad, juh-udge.” If you’re gonna ramble on about the system, then you need to explain in good detail how they are willing participants in that system or active supporters of the evil you kritik. Don’t just read yet another Zizek card and expect that to explain everything. Also, if the impact is on a different level than the aff’s “post-fiat” case impax, then you gotta do the work to compare the two. You’ve gotta give me more to weigh than biopower vs. nuclear war. Give me solid explanation of why your K-ish impact should be weighed as more significant than the case’s attempt to stop a war or whatever. If your impax include turning the case, then say so, but also win your external impact. For me, good 2ac offense against the K (usually something about how either the plan action or advocacy of the plan is the best way to solve for what they’re kritiking) can go a long way. Non-traditional debate — I kinda feel that the divide between so-called “traditional” debate and the “nontraditional” variety is a false one. Despite this view, there are many on both sides who will defend their style of debate as long as it takes. I’m sure there will be many rounds where it’s a battle of debate styles. The question is how to resolve the two. Well, that’s a job for those debating. You need to explain to me why I should prefer your style of the debate or 6 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet why in this round your arguments should be preferred. If it’s for community activism, then feel free to make your case. I have a lot of respect for schools that continue to push the envelope in our activity. If you are defending traditional debate, do so, but don’t just make the tired old, “they’re destroying the activity” claims. You can do better than that. If you want to argue framework, that’s fine. I should say, though, that I am skeptical of this recent “aff gets to pick the framework” trend that many “policy” teams have been running. I think you should defend your affirmative, no matter what that is. I’m not saying that I won’t vote for it in a particular round if it’s defended well (I will have a higher standard for this particular argument). What I am saying is don’t expect me to buy that argument just because you made it. Flowing — A good deal of teams are moving away from the flow, and some ask the judge to do so at very odd points in the round. I will say that my default is to flow (here I will fall back on the standard “my memory sucks” reason). If, however, you don’t want me to flow the round, please ask me before the round starts. If the other team is fine with it, I will be more than happy to forgo flowing for that debate. All in all, have fun. It’s your debate. For neg’s, just think for a few minutes about how what you’re reading applies directly to the plan, and argue from there. For aff’s, don’t be afraid of your aff. I’ve seen many aff teams try to answer the neg’s arguments with totally new stuff, practically abandoning the 9 minutes of the 1ac. Don’t do that! Use the 1ac to your advantage. You know its tricks. Use them. I hope all this makes sense. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. 7 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Achten, Greg Berkeley 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 imperative” and 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 relatively critique friendly judge. I will fairly listen to and evaluate critiques and have found myself voting on critiques an awful lot in the [ast few years. If your K is not mainstream you will need to explain it to me. I am also less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do 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. I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues except those ending in spec, though I have voted aff. alot on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased . Arguments like “USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are most likely non-starters. Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is your big strategy invest some time. Other than that speed is fine as long as you’re clear. 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 mail it in that 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. 8 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Arnett, Dave Berkeley 1. I lean negative on most counterplan theory issues except maybe some intrinsicness permutations e.g. consult on x other issue, have referendum on y other issue. 2. conditionality is the logical state of the counterplan. 3. PICs are good clean fun. 4. Textual competition is a commie plot to get rid of germaine counterplans i.e. c/x and evidence can determine competition in cases where the plan isn't explicit. 5. Topicality is about competing interpretations. 6. I'd prefer not to punish a team on theory. Arguments not teams should lose. 7. Disads are good. Uniqueness is somewhere between 0-100. I like to let risk assessment determine my ballot. That said, I think debaters let each other get away with silly impact claims e.g. xyz = extinction...try or die. 8. I read evidence when it is disputed. I won't call for evidence if you weren't reasobably clear reading it. 9. Locating me as a judge/policy guy/activist/etc...is important for evaluating critiques. Letting the other team keep alternatives and links abscact will hurt your ability to generate offense. 9 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Atchison, Jarrod Georgia Macro Issues: I prefer policy debates. What do I mean by that? A policy debate occurs when I resolve whether the affirmative plan is better than the status quo or a competitive policy option. What about discourse? I am not sure what standards I should use to evaluate the discourse of any particular debate. Do I weigh the good stuff versus the bad stuff? What discourse does the negative have to defend? It does not seem fair for the negative to be able to identity one flaw with the 1ac and advocate every other part. The basic message here is that if you want me to evaluate a "non-policy" debate then please describe the standards and role of the judge in that framework. I do not feel comfortable being asked to sign my ballot for a particular political purpose or to join a movement. I often do not agree with the political goal or the strategy of achieving it. One of the powerful things I have learned in debate is just how little I actually know regarding many issues. As a result, I would rather continue to learn about issues by testing ideas and policies in debate than sign my ballot in an effort to create change. Micro Issues: Topicality- an a priori voting issue. It's a question of which team has the better interpretation. However, the affirmative need only win that theirs is a reasonable interpretation to win the debate. Conditionality and PICs- not terribly predisposed on either issue. Please slow down on theory argument sthey are often very difficult to flow. Critical Arguments- please articulate how the critical argument demonstrates that the affirmative plan is worse than the status quo or a competitive policy option.or describe an alternate framework/standards that I should use to evaluate the debate. Affirmatives: too many times affirmative teams give up arguing that the plan is the focus of the debate and do not argue that the negative should defend a policy option. I have found that when the negative is allowed to compare the 1ac/plan to perfection the affirmative often loses. Random Voting Issues- I'm disappointed at how often I'm asked to decide a debate on bad voting issues that were buried in the 1AR #3 off the 2AC #5, etc.I do think the other team needs to call a spade a spade, but not much more. Style Issues: Cross Ex- extremely important speech time. Please do not waste by merely asking for evidence. Just like speech time you need to be strategic with your Cross ex time-I don't pay attention to things said during prep time. Please slow down during cp texts, theory debates, and topicality debates. 10 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Averbeck, Josh Critical args- I am a believer in creativity with the topic. If you have some interesting way of interpreting the topic and are able to defend it, then go for it. I am also sympathetic to the arguments that this isn't true. Basically, I do not come into the room with a disposition to one way or the other on critical arguments. Tell me where I should come down and it. I don't like jargon being thrown at me. Explain your cards to me and show the links. Policy args- I like clean stories on disads and counterplans. Just because you have the big impact doesn't mean you are going to win. I need to know how we get those impacts and I don't want to figure that out for myself. I don't care how outlandish the story is, as long as I can follow it. I dig politics scenarios, inventive counterplans, but I also like to see well planned strategies that develop throughout the round. I like to see better evidence and analysis about that evidence as opposed to 45 crappy cards. Theory args- I like T and theory. I don't like blipped theory args. Just because you can read a block doesn't show me that you understand the arguments. Do the application for me. Really, I don't like to think at the end of the round. Tell me the abuse story, and if you are going for theory GO FOR THEORY. Speaking- I like clarity and smart args. If you want to do quantity over quality of arguments in front of me, then show me you intend to use those arguments to some end. Misc- I don't like to read evidence at the end of rounds. I will only do it if it comes down to competing claims about the card that could win/lose the round. If it comes down to one team's card versus another then I will listen to your explanation. I want to vote on your arguments and not on what I think the arguments should be. If you can explain your evidence and talk about their evidence in the last two speeches, you will have a good shot picking me up. 11 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Barnes, Andrew James Madison Theory: Topicality is always a voter and never a reverse voter. I’m also unlikely to be persuaded that it is genocidal or the cause of some societal “ism”. If going for T in the 2NR make sure that you have impacted your standards for rejecting the affirmative and the more specific you can be the better. Most any counterplan is legitimate but I’m skeptical of Utopic, Consult and Timeframe counterplans. I despise SPEC arguments and WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM, with one exception. It is legitimate for the negative to run ASPEC to protect their ability to run an agent counterplan if the affirmative out of the cross-x of the 1AC will not specify what USFG means. Other than that, leave these idiotic arguments in your tubs. In general, those that slow down 10-15% during theory debates are likely to win the theory debate because more arguments will translate to my flow. It is also imperative that you sell the story of your theory argument just like you would a disad, kritik or case advantage. Regional overviews and explaining offense at the beginning is good. It should be noted that I find “reject the argument not the team” to be a fairly compelling argument provided that the argument in question is kicked during or before the final rebuttal. Policy: This is my forte but that doesn’t mean I privledge policy arguments over kritik arguments just because I didn’t enjoy running them. Negatives can really get ahead by having excellent case strategies because most affirmatives aren’t challenged nearly enough. Case specific disads provide for much better and more interesting debates. One thing that drives me nuts is when the affirmative concedes or nearly concedes a disad, and the negative concedes or nearly condedes affirmative advantages and expect me to resolve the debate without impact assessment. Impact assessment is highly important but don’t forget defense against their offense. Other than that, I’m familiar with 90% of the policy arguments being run so I should be able to follow whatever it is you have to say. Kritik: Not my forte, but it is your debate round, not mine, so don’t assume that I will not vote for these arguments. I prefer, but don’t demand, that the K has a more specific link than the generic USFG bad, i.e. statism is an unpersuasive argument to me. I also expect K’s to have an alternative. I do have a background in philosophy which means that I should be able to evaluate what you are saying. General Comments: I flow and I’m unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. I flow cross-x and it is binding unless debated otherwise. To evaluate speaker points I default to Tim O’ Donnell’s scale. Try to avoid personally attacking your opponent or kritiking their language, if they make one mistake and apologize for it. Everyone makes mistakes and I feel uncomfortable voting against a person for one accidental comment. It also makes me uncomfortable to vote for another team for demonizing their colleague for a mistake. However, I will dock speaker points for one mistake, and I will not hesitate to stop rounds and reject a team if they consistently use 12 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet sexist or racist language. On that note, this is the best damn activity out there and it wouldn't exist without your opponents so, don't abuse them. 13 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Barnes, Heather Mary Washington General – I like debate, and you should to (since you’re doing it), which is why I’m not the best person (and probably closer to the worst end of the spectrum) to run critiques of the topic selection process, or speed, or linear time/thought, etc in front of. I heavily favor policy debate, am sympathetic to tricky affs on the edge of the topic, plan flaw procedurals, and 2ars who finally figure it out. If I stare, scowl, gape or look confusedly at my flow, it’s probably not because you’re unclear, but because I don’t understand the utility of the arguments you’re making. I place a strong value on the analytical truth of arguments, and for the love of humanity, read the other team's evidence early and point out how bad it is. T – Sure. I think relying on competing interpretations instead of reasonability is sort of stupid, but I understand the strategic necessity of it. Abuse is more persuasive than nebulous ideas of how the topic should be. The resolution being flawed is a reason to vote negative, not to allow a non-topical aff just for the sake of debate. CP theory – If you can defend it, you can do it. An aff will be hard pressed to convince me that conditionality or PICs (or even one cp that is both!) are abusive. Quite frankly, I probably won’t care about a word you’re saying on this because everyone knows that people run PICs and conditional CPs, so you should be ready to debate them and allocate your time accordingly. Make the args to put time pressure on the negative, or to generate offense if you’ve got nothing else, but you’re better off with substance. (Side note – interpreting dispositionality to mean that if they straight turn it, you’re stuck with it, is stupid and non-strategic. If they straight turn it, of course you want the option to kick it. Think like the negative, not the whiny affirmative.) Ks – Don't like 'em, would rather not listen to 'em, usually it's a waste of 1nc time, but I'll vote for you if I think you've won it. Winning it, however, usually requires the other team to screw up/be bad. In general, I think permutations solve, the K impacts don’t solve the case or turn it, and that without a policy alternative you’ve got no chance of outweighing the aff or beating its time frame. If you’re debating a K aff in front of me and you think it’s better to roll out with a K than policy good, more power to you, but you’ve filled out your judge preference sheet very, very wrong. In the case of gendered language, don’t use it, but if you did, apologize. As for anything else, I probably don’t feel that strongly about it, but I’ll be glad to answer questions. 14 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Barouch, Tim I’ve judged about 10 rounds on this topic so far, have watched a handful more, and coached at the GSU and Clay tourneys. Here is some information that might help debaters. Theory issues—my default positions are probably a tad more conservative than most. For example, debaters strike me as fairly dodgy on what their plans do, and what counterplans do, and I’m not convinced that makes for great debate. I understand this done out of plan-inclusion CP anxiety, but it still strikes me as a bit unfair. Ditto for CPs and amendments to CPs—this practice is a lot more widespread than when I debated years ago, and I’m not really sure what to make of it. Critical args—I think well-formed critical arguments are great. I haven’t voted on one yet this year, but I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from that. I think the key for me voting neg on those args has to do with the link and the impact more than the alternative. For example, if the neg does a good job arguing the aff’s discourse (or worldview, or whatever placeholder) presumes a flawed subject construction, and that means that the aff misdescribes the political, so no solvency, I’m more inclined to vote neg on those issues in the face of blanket claims of “ontology bad” or the like. Topicality—I used to like it, but I haven’t voted neg yet this year on it. I think the neg can win if they have a good coherent interpretation of the resolution. To my eye/ear, when the negative has gone for T in front of me and lost, it was because negs overemphasized limits and underemphasized coherence and predictability of topic construction. Performance args—I haven’t judged these at the college level and so don’t really know about the outlook. Since teams that run these args tend to run them exclusively, if I can give you a clue about my thinking, I guess it would be that I would want to hear the impacts of the exclusive nature of the community (rate of speed, etc.) weighed against the benefits and I have concerns of topicality based on a metaphor (if that’s the strategy). Round evaluation—I’m not the best flow in the world, but also not the worst, and I have a pretty good memory. Speed has nothing to do with the quality of my flow- in fact, quick clear debaters hold my concentration more and produce a better flow. I like crisp debates and will reward teams that give good rebuttals by reading more of their cards. It isn’t a bias issue—it’s just that I prefer when debaters direct me to the most important evidence to break ties, weigh args, etc. Basically I evaluate debates based on which teams control the most critical descriptions—be they of the squo, the CP effect, the DA impact, the K alternative, whatever the teams agree is most important. 15 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Baxter-Kauf, Kate 3 Tournaments (King's, West Point, Harvard), 23 rounds University of Rochester/State University of New York at Buffalo I debated for Macalester (St. Paul, MN) and in Kansas in high school. I coached high school debate in Minnesota for 3 years (2 years at Blaine and one at the Blake School), and judged 50+ debates each of those years. This year, I'm coaching at two schools: I'm working with the University of Rochester, and continuing to start a policy team at the University at Buffalo. I travel mostly in the Northeast, for what it's worth. here's what i think: people in debate rounds should do whatever it is that they want to do. i would prefer that you debate in front of me doing whatever it is that you're good at, or like doing, or think you have the most chance of winning with, rather than try to impress me by reading arguments that for some reason you think i'm predisposed to. i certainly have preferences towards certain arguments, and if you have questions about something, ask me. but by and large, i would rather just facilitate you doing what you want to do. i would prefer good debates on things i hate FAR BEFORE i want to watch bad debates on things i love. so do what you're good at. some thoughts, obviously debatable: i am compelled by limits debates on topicality, not at all by o-spec, in a variety of directions on gendered language debates depending on the day, by disads in general and also by the aff claim that inevitable status quo extinction trumps disads. i agree both with limits debates and also with ideological reasons why topicality can be bad. the only thing worse than malthus is answers to malthus. i think genocide is bad, economic sanctions are also bad, and that nuclear war is not necessarily the worst thing that could happen. i think conditionality is probably suspect but that aff debates on it are generally terrible. i suppose i vote on so called cheap shots more than most people. i pay ridiculous attention in debate rounds and sometimes talk during them about britney or other things from the trashy magazines i read. do not mistake this for me not paying attention. i will make faces. above all, it is not okay to make fun of britney, even if her marriage to kevin federline is probably an unmitigated disaster. A note about speaker points: i probably give higher than average points. this does not bother me. i reserve the right to give points for pretty much anything i feel like at any time. i have been known to give bonus points for things i find amusing/interesting/generally good. if you are mean i will give lower points in addition to being angry. anything else, you should probably just ask. 16 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Bauschard, Stefan I. Louisville lay judge OK. II. Silly plans I’ve heard: a) “Vote affirmative,” b) “Reject the squo,” C) “whatever being,” D) “embrace the multitude” III. Theoretical dispositions Conditionality/PICS. I am so tired of hearing these debates. I have never voted on conditionality bad or PICS bad, though I’ll admit I would have once. I have seen conditional cps and PICS that I thought were unfair, but if you want to win these arguments you need to contextualize them in terms of the specific pic or conditional CP being bad. Dispo – I think dispo is crazy. Why would you commit to running only 1 CP before the 2AC has even spoken? Also, if a CP, or part of a CP, is theoretically illigit, I don’t think the aff should be discouraged from arguing that. I think if a CP is deemed non-competitive and it is not conditional/dispositional the aff wins. Aff conditionality? Ah, no. Textual competition. Ah, no. Ks. Still prefer policy debate, though Ks have been so normalized that this stuff doesn’t even get me to raise my eyebrows anymore. I find “wrong forum” arguments persuasive, particularly if dressed-up in sexier “framework” language. DA-style Ks that are net-benefits to alternatives are fine Stupid independent voters. You need to really win a debate – I don’t flow these arguments. Topicality. Artificially limiting interps are a hard sell unless the aff’s counter-interp is disastrous. Some people seem to be pushing the envelop a little, so some of the T debates this year are interesting. IV. Deciding Debates More important than my theoretical dispositions is how I decide close debates. I think that fairly deciding a close debate is pretty hard and that only in close debates does it ultimately matter how I decide things. If the debate is not close it is because either one side wins all or most of the arguments and frames the debate so things shake-down in their favor. 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. 17 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Wars & death. I think these things are worse than most other things that affirmatives have sought to avoid over the last twenty years. Risk assessment. Any argument is rarely totally unique or non-unique. Risk=increased probability (size of the link) relative to the likelihood of it happening absent the plan times impact. Uniqueness can be close to absolute for one side (class action tort), but rarely is (the election). If debaters made arguments as to what percentage chance of uniqueness operates in their favor, I think they’d be better off. Link size/link likelihood. In very good debates, it is usually the case that the neg wins some links, the aff wins some turns, and that debaters assume they win all of their args and completely defeat their opponent’s offense. This makes debates hard to fairly decide, and it is one of the things that I look for when calling for evidence – what does the evidence say about the SIZE/MAGNITUDE of the relative link/turn. Such things should be emphasized. 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. 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. A few final judge philosophy notes: 1) My argument preferences don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Your debating is going to have a much bigger impact on my decision than any preference I have. In every debate I judged last year, the team that A) had arguments that other team didn’t answer well, B) extended a strong combination of arguments in their rebuttals, C) Didn’t spread themselves out and, and D) did strong impact analysis (time-frame, probability, impact) won the debate. This held true regardless as to what side they were on or what arguments they ran. 2) Speaker points. At least a 28 if you do traditional policy debate. Non-traditional debaters can certainly get more, but it’s not automatic. 18 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Bellon, Joe Georgia State Debate is a game, self-evidently. This does not necessarily have any implications as far as the format of debate. The important implication of “debate is a game” is that you should try to have fun playing the game. For god’s sake, you’re all college students. You could be out having fun in some other, more traditional college student fashion. I firmly believe that debate can be fun. 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. After all, I always thought the politics disad was kind of stupid, but it’s stood the test of time. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning, 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. Oh, I’m very good at making things up, but you won’t like that. In this vein, let me say that few debaters these days 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. Furthermore, if you choose to present a style of debate that is not traditional (and more power to you, by the way), you should explain to me what my role as a judge is. Specifically, you should help me understand how you want me to decide whose name to write on the ballot in the “win” column. I feel a little uncomfortable discerning your procedural intent without some directions from you — even if those directions appear as rap, narrative, poetry, or whatever. You know, now that I think about it, you should explain what my role is even if you DON’T do something non-traditional. Please be entertaining. Please, please be entertaining. I’m a sucker for funny debate, friendly smack talk, or anything that distracts me from the fact that I’ve just had to hear a conditionality debate for the five hundredth time. As long as you’re not being hostile, intolerant, or a jerk, almost anything goes. Use sports cliches (the disad’s deep, and it’s not turnable), pop culture references, good jokes, heck, bad jokes. Just do something fun. POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS SUCK. I am so sick and tired of debaters flying into a rage because their opponent can’t instantly produce the fifth solvency card they just read. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if it’s making a point. If it’s not, I’ll crush your points. It’s going to leave a mark, trust me. 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. 19 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Bittner, Brian I have one major guideline for teams debating in front of me: Do NOT argue theory. I would rather read thirty ratty, overtagged, barely readable cards than spend two minutes weighing "no education" against anything. I have thought about this long and hard and have made my decision. I am no longer open to personal re-education on the value of multiple dispositional counterplans. Here are some practical reasons why you should oblige me this: 1. I am a moderately slow flower, and I won't recognize or be able to flow half of your theory arguments. Argue that which I will recognize. 2. It will make you a better debater instead of a first-class cheap-shot artist. 3. It will help you establish a positive relationship with me as a critic, which never looks bad on your permanent record. 4. Good researchers now have a better chance of beating good debaters. But their counterplan/kritik/conception of fiat/ is truly horrible! What do I do? Read some cards. If it's really bad, someone has stated reasons why. Extensions of law review comments, analysis of the political process and argumentation texts as "cards-as-theoryarguments-in-disguise" are welcome. For example, try searching for the text of your crappy theory arguments, like vagueness: Milligan and Schlesinger, Boston Globe, February 27, 2001 "Bush aides defend the vagueness, saying it will allow for debate.." This is an experiement on my part, but I am entitled to it and I believe that it will make the debates I am involved in better. If this is ridiculous to you, I suggest using your preference and strike sheets as a tool of resistance. A QUICK ROGUE'S GALLERY OF THEORY MADNESS September 15, 2002 - This afternoon I actually listened to part of a debate that ended up like so: The counterplan is dispositional, which is good, and ought to be preferred over the perms, which are multiple and thus bad. What was the case? What was the counterplan? Does it matter? And am I the only one who thinks that this spun horribly out of control? 20 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet September 16, 2002 - I discover that we have an 18-point frontline for international fiat counterplans, or something else stupid. I am horrified. 21 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Borden, Kara Puget Sound Number of YEARS Judging: High School: 5 College: 1 Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic): High School: 1 College: 2 Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic): High School: 9 College: 13 PHILOSOPHY I debated for the University of Oregon and am now in my first year coaching at UPS. My first few years in college I debated fairly traditional policy arguments. Last year while we had a mainstream aff we went for the K or a procedural most of the time on the negative. I'm fairly open to however people want me to evaluate the debate. Absent a framework established by either team I default to weighing advantages of the aff versus disadvantages or a viable CP or kritik alternative. However, if you explain some other way the debate you should explain how the round should be evaluated and a defense of that framework. CP Theory- I think I probably default more to the negative on CP theory like PICs, Dispotionality and conditionality. I lean more to the affirmative with issues like object fiat, multiple CPs, etc. Please do not just read a slew of theory arguments and expect me to sort it out. Well developed, warranted arguments will get you much further than just re-reading your blocks in the rebuttals. Topicality- I've got a reputation as a topicality hack because I went for this argument in the 2NR a lot. This does not mean I default neg on topicality, in fact I've voted aff in more times than neg in debates where the 2NR goes for T. I think evaluation of different impacts is very important just like in the substantive debate. For example, explain what type of ground is most important, whether ground or education is more vital, etc. I'm willing to listen to arguments about why T should not be a voting issue, like T is genocide. Critical arguments- I'm not incredibly familiar with a fair portion of the literature, but certainly do not have a predisposition against the K. I think most of the time the negative will be winning a link argument, but the debate probably comes down to the alternative and the impacts of the K in relation to the affirmative. Performance- I haven't judged any of these types of debate yet. As described above if you win your framework arguments in the debate you're probably in good shape. 22 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet If you have any other questions ask me before the round or find someone from the Northwest and ask him or her what I'm like as a judge. 23 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Bowman, Pam This is the last tournament of the year and you are the ones debating, not me. 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 or demeaning. 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 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,” you need to be clear about defending and weighing those two choices. --I appreciate good case debate, 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. --I read cards after the debate if I need to, but I won’t use the warrants in the cards to make arguments or connections for you. That is your job. --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 Washington DC 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 two topics. Framework debates are also essential as to how I evaluate these arguments and how they function during the debate. --A good CX is a factor in assigning speaker points. 24 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Brar, Kip I am a huge fan of debate and enjoy judging debates. That being said, I prefer traditional policy debate more than other styles. Despite debating for the Univ of Texas I am not well versed in critical theory, thus kritikal teams need to be extra diligent in explaining the basis of their arguments. I am very flow oriented and prefer & reward solid technical line-by-line debating. Though, if a team feels like overview/paragraph debating instead of the minutia of the line-by-line that is alright, but make sure I can find an answer for all the important arguments made by the other team. Despite my preference for line-by-line debating a dropped argument is not always damning (even theory arguments). There is a general threshold an argument must pass (needs warrants, impacts, and be well explained) before I will vote for it even if it is conceded. I find defense/offense distinctions important, and find myself thinking in these terms often. However, a team does not have to win offense to win a section of the debate with me. I am very easily persuaded and generally a big fan of defensive arguments – even without evidence- if well explained. Defensive arguments (like no I/L and no Link) are enough to take out an entire position if well explained and warranted. CX is one of my favorite parts of a debate. Good CXing will boost speaker points. I strongly believe CX is binding. I do not have patience for a team who does not give straightforward responses, is non-sensical, or dodges questions. Speaker points and biases will be used against you. Despite the fact that the cult of uniqueness has taken over policy debate, I tend to evaluate the direction of the link debate before the uniqueness. Though it is crucial to win uniqueness - in a close debate I usually err towards the link. Topicality/Theory – I enjoy a good T debate, and enjoy general theory debates when they are relevant and specific. Topicality is not genocidal. Kritiks of topicality are not persuasive unless severely, and I mean severely, botched by the neg. Reverse voting issues are ridiculous and threaten speaker points._ I believe it is important to have a interpretation/counter-interpretation on these debates and often evaluate them in such a manner. However, I judge way too many debates where the interp and c-interp are not well explained or hashed out. It will be difficult to get my ballot if I don’t completely understand your interpretation. It is not completely necessary to have a counterinterpretation, defensive arguments like “we meet” can be enough. I despise blippy, tag line theory debates. I want any theory extended to be in paragraph form w/ complete sentences. Number of arguments extended is usually over rated – a couple well explained arguments are enough. “I am not a fan of the C/I only our case is topical” – even if dropped, I may not vote for it. Overviews on the theory debate in the rebuttals are crucial. Examples are often very helpful. Disads/Case debates – are my preferred arguments. Nothing is sweeter than seeing a team get beat on their own case. Negatives who display a equal or greater knowledge of the affirmative case than the aff will be rewarded with speaker points as an acknowledgment of hard work. Uniqueness for case turns is important. The more specific the disad is to the case the better. Counterplans – I generally prefer counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative for other reasons than just net benefits. The more specific the counterplan is to the affirmative the more I will enjoy the debate. Generic agent or procedural c/p’s (exec order, veto cheeto, etc) are less preferred, and usually require evidence specific to the affirmative. I find counterplans with specific solvency evidence most compelling, but not always necessary. Kritiks – refer to opening paragraph – there is almost always a link to the K, but I believe that despite the links – link turns can win the debate if the aff explains why the link turn outweighs the links lost. However, the alternative is usually most important to me, and feel they should be well explained and should be the focus of affirmative attack. Fiat is generally less important of a debate for me, I prefer teams to debate the relevancy of impacts/implications instead. But, a generic fiat debate can be important and I will hear and evaluate them. Kritik affs – Topicality is usually the biggest issue for me. Kritiks of topicality are usually unpersuasive to me. A kritik aff needs to be related to and link to the resolution. The general problem with these affs is they leave little 25 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet room for negation. I am generally very flexible with negative argumentation against kritik affs and require less of a burden to win the debate. Lastly, the only argument I will not vote for is TIME CUBE. No matter what. I’m just ignorant. 26 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Breshears, David I don’t read a lot of evidence and I’m a fairly quick trigger. I like to think it’s because I’ve been doing this for a long time and intervene as little as possible, not because I’m looking for quick ways out. I tend to default to the betterargued impact calculus, and that makes decisions a lot easier. Take that for what it’s worth. I am also susceptible to the “C’mon, judge” gut-check. If you’re aff, you get a lot of latitude, but if there isn’t predictable, debatable negative ground, you’ll be fighting an uphill battle with me in the back of the room (assuming the negative chooses to pursue this line of argument, though few do). If you’re neg, your arg had better compete with the aff. With that said, I think affirmative innovation invites negative reinterpretation of the meaning of competition. This is an underutilized negative tool. I give lots of feedback during debates. If you don’t like that sort of thing, strike me. Please, strike me. For the love of God and all that is Holy, strike me. I think strikes are an under-utilized strategy against me judging. 27 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Brigham, Matt For me, debate is first and foremost a game. I believe that debate also accomplishes many other goals, including education, activism, etc… but I believe the reason we choose to attend tournaments and compete is that we want to win just as anyone engaged in a game wants to be victorious. When I debated, I tended to enjoy/prefer critical arguments/strategies over traditional counterplan/politics debates. However, I enjoy both types of debates. I have no problem with people in engaging in non-traditional forms of debate, but I do have some basic assumptions that I carry with me even into those rounds: 1- Clash is a fundamental part of debate. This doesn’t mean that one necessarily has to do traditional line-by-line refutation and argumentation, but complete avoidance of your opponent’s arguments seems problematic. 2- Debate involves speaking for yourself. While this should not altogether exclude the possibility of non-traditional evidence (playing music, etc…), you must still speak and make arguments if you want speaker points. Simply showing a movie or playing music for your entire speech will make it hard for me to justify giving good speaker points. As for “regular” debates, here are some of my feelings: Topicality- I think topicality is important to providing a fair and predictable starting point for a debate. I will listen to arguments about why I shouldn’t vote on topicality, though I do not find RVIs particularly compelling. Counterplans- I tend to err negative on many counterplan questions, though I think that there are clearly abusive counterplans. Criticisms- I do not think that a criticism necessarily has to have an alternative. If the 1AC is shown to be bankrupt, in its methodology/assumptions/etc…, that can be a sufficient reason to vote negative. However, I do think that each team needs to frame the role of the ballot. Meta-issue Comparison- Each team needs to do the work to prioritize issues in the debate. For instance, in a debate where topicality, a counterplan, a discourse criticism, a methodological criticism, and other procedural arguments are involved needs to be analyzed in terms of a hierarchy of importance (is topicality the first issue, is discourse the first issue, and WHY). 28 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Brovero, Adrienne Assistant Director of Debate, University of Richmond, 10 years coaching 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, roadmapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, sufficient participation by each speaker 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. 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 appreciate roadmapping, signposting, and direct refutation during speeches. Evidence: I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. I reward those who make this easier by reading in a flowable fashion (clear, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate. I pay attention to quals. 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 unhighlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team. I should not have to read the unhighlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument. 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. [Note: I don’t like anonymous pronouns 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 29 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Topicality & plan-related issues: Affs should be topical. T is a voter. “Kritiks” of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing. Anti-topical actions are neg ground. The aff needs to have a written plan text. Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how “projects” or “demands” are meaningfully different from “plans”; 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. Kritiks/Performance: I don’t really like deciding kritik or performance debates. Most of them take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. 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. 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 accusations about a team’s intentions to be virtually impossible in 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”. 30 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Bsumek, Pete James Madison 18 years coaching & judging 40ish rounds on this topic “Whoever refers to authorities in disputing ideas, works with his memory rather than with his reason” Leonardo da Vinci “On every issue there are two arguments opposed to each other, including this one.” Protagoras Debaters should do what they are good at. So here are some observations, which should help you win my ballot— ignore them at your own risk. 1. Slow down: No really I mean it. This is especially critical with regard to the issues that you must win in order to win the debate. This will help you explain how the key arguments that you are winning interact with the key arguments that the other team is winning. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is when a debate comes down to theory, topicality or framework. 2. Accept it; you have not won everything: Focus on the issues that you are winning. Be willing to grant that some issues are moot and/or a tie. You should also accept that the other teams might be winning some issues—be ready to explain why what they are winning doesn’t win them the debate. 3. Do lots of impact and probability assessment. On the issues you might be behind on try to explain why the risk is worth taking. For me a certain short-term impact tends to out weigh bigger longer term impacts—if the team that wins the short term impact can offer hope (that is, a possibility) for averting the bigger longer term impact. This is not written in stone—but it does seem to be the way I weigh things absent compelling arguments to the opposite. Thus, teams going for longer-term impacts should offer “hope” for avoiding the shorter term impacts—or clearly explain why it is a necessary evil. 4. Framework is debatable: In my opinion a good framework should encourage flip-side debate, allow for a multiplicity of argument styles, techniques, and proofs and encourage critical thinking. Most importantly, it should position (or situate) me as a judge with agency (what that agency is, is more or less up for grabs). 5. I am not a fan of the politics DA: This is so because the politics DA is merely a description of an inherent barrier—most likely an attitudinal barrier. This means that the very reason we debate becomes irrelevant. We debate to change and shape opinion. Nonetheless, I vote on them when both teams accept their legitimacy. 6. Theory and Framework Debates: Use the warrants and reasons of your opponent to build your positions. For example, if they get to do X, then we get to do Y. Y should help you win because: 1) it proves how we would end up with an undesirable kind of debate, or 2) it provides you with the best policy, position, or option (probably because it solved for their net-benefit(s), etc). 7. Critical vs. Policy: I am especially interested in a debate framework that does not make this kind of distinction. You are probably reading that as a good sign for your position—it probably isn’t. Try to offer me a framework that encourages deliberative rhetoric without sacrificing critical possibilities and perspectives. 8. Critical links: Most debates I see these days involve really bad critical link debating (on both sides of the issue). Negatives you got to take some time to show how your link evidence interacts with the affirmative’s position/advocacy. Affirmatives, I know the pragmatism cards are useful—but they are only useful if your position advances a pragmatic step that is consistent with the critique. This means that the affirmative needs to explain how they are in fact a step that is pragmatically beneficial with regards to the critical position. 9. Be nice, respect each other, respect the community—challenge the community, and have fun! 31 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Burk, Chris General Issues: I enjoy debate and I tend to enjoy judging debate rounds. I have some preferences to which you can adapt. First, the best arguments have warrants. I like rounds that revolve around evidence and warranted arguments. A few good, thick cards with warrant brought together with a coherent story will (almost) always beat a dozen weak cards or a dozen blippy analytic arguments. Cards that are highlighted down to next-to-nothing get very little weight from me; cards must at least form a complete sentence. Source indicts, date comparisons and comparisons of authors’ qualifications and biases are welcome and can be very important. Good, non-carded analytic arguments are also welcome. I tend to read cards after the round. Second, I prefer traditional presentations (form, as opposed to content) in debate rounds. I will flow one and only one speaker during a speech. I will flow arguments to the best of my ability and use my flow to help make a decision at the end of the round. I will abide by the time limits of the tournament. I will give one win and one loss. This list is not exhaustive and these preferences are not debatable – a team that declines to abide by such standards will probably not enjoy my judging style, my decisions, and the speaker points that I will give. This is me giving you prior notice. Third, CX is a lost art and it’s crucial to your speaker points. It’s the only time in the round where the debaters directly interact with each other. Be very careful about your answers in CX since I strongly believe that CX answers are binding. So be prepared to give straightforward answers. I might interject during CX if you’re obviously avoiding a direct question since I want answers too. I generally prefer a “closed” CX unless some terrible confusion will result from an errant answer. I often find debaters who lord over their partner during CX (and during other times) to be unpleasant and plainly rude. I find it particularly repulsive to act in such a way while making arguments about silencing voices, real world oppression, etc. Fourth, neither fabricating evidence nor clipping cards is acceptable. Stealing prep is not cool and will hurt your points. Fifth, I hope that debaters (and coaches) have fun and show respect for each other and the activity. Let’s all be passionate about the issues but please try to refrain from nasty personal attacks. If you are funny, you will get better points. Sixth, I try to give verbal and non-verbal feedback during the round. I encourage you to pay attention to my reactions. If I find your speaking to be unclear, I’ll indicate that verbally. If you notice that I am not flowing, that is a sign that you should reference where you are and be clear. Otherwise, speed is expected and demonstrating technical proficiency is crucial to speaker points. Finally, I tend to rely on my own biases when evaluating impacts unless otherwise directed. Such biases include death is bad, coffee is good, countrypop is not music, pain is bad, freedom is good, racism is bad, a nuclear war is worse than a conventional war, etc. If you want to argue otherwise then you should read good impact cards. I’ve never voted for Malthus, Spark, or Wipeout and I hope that I never do. I’ve reluctantly voted for Normativity once in my judging career. Topicality: Affirmatives should have a central statement that will remain stable and that they will defend. This statement (usually a plan) needs to relate to the given topic. The Negative generally needs to prove that the plan/project would only be allowed under an interpretation of the topic (or debate as an activity) that is too large, too unfair, and/or too unpredictable for the Negative. Unless argued otherwise, the basic issue for me is a fair division of ground with some predictability and educational value. Like other arguments, topicality arguments should be well developed. Shallow violations barked out in ten seconds of the 1NC and extended for 20 seconds during the 1NR are not effective – they are just annoying. ASPEC is not a valuable argument and I have never voted on it. Disadvantages and Case Arguments: This topic has lots of good ones and the debaters will hopefully make use of them. I will vote on Proliferation Good, Economy, Politics, and other old-fashioned “policy” arguments with no problem. The direction of the link tends to matter more to me than uniqueness. Affirmatives should be able to explain their case arguments, not just extend the 1AC evidence. Both sides should be careful when 'kicking' positions. Probabilities of the link, internal link, and impact are important, as are the magnitudes of the impacts. Debaters should do some impact analysis, the earlier the better. 'Offense' is frequently important but not an absolute requirement. The rounds I tend to enjoy the most are those that focus on case arguments and disadvantages. I’m working on a dissertation in international relations (rather than philosophy or communications) exactly because I find the issues in the conventional IR and security literature to be the most interesting. That’s also a hint to you kritikal folks on what I read. Kritiks/Critiques: I’m ready to listen to various types of kritikal content from the Aff or the Neg. Have a link, explain your implication(s), and explain how it functions. Explain your argument and, when possible, articulate some specific applications! Alternatives might be useful, but the requirement of having one is up for debate. The more non-traditional your form/presentation gets, the lower the chance that I will understand your argument and the 32 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet less leeway you get. Run what you want but don’t expect me to automatically understand every five-syllable word you say. I’ll listen and try to be fair. I occasionally have trouble flowing five syllable words; it is in your own interest to have tags that I can flow. So I suggest that you downshift from Mach 4, fully explain what your argument is, and be ready to explain how that relates to their arguments, the round, and the ballot. You also might be ready to explain how procedural issues (topicality, conditionality, etc.) relate to these arguments. Does topicality come first? Why or why not? Also, rounds involving kritikal arguments should be very clear about the implications of terms like “perm” and “turn.” It is often debatable how perms and turns function in rounds where non-traditional arguments are under consideration so the debaters should be sure to fully explain these arguments. For example, does a turned kritik come before topicality? Finally, offensive language is not nice but I generally believe that a basic, sincere apology is sufficient put the issue to rest. Counterplans: Are often useful in “policy” rounds. The text of the counterplan should be written out and available to the affirmative team. Perms should also be written out. And, by the way, don’t even think about altering the text of your plan, counterplan, or perm after it has been spoken – if I find that you have, you’ll get a loss, zero speaker points, and be disgraced. As I mentioned above, I prefer strong evidence. In regard to counterplans, that means specific solvency cards and advocates. An example: The statement that “there’s no reason why Bolivia cannot do the plan” is not a strong reason why Bolivia can solve the case. There’s almost no chance that an affirmative team will have good solvency attacks to an international agent counterplan when original solvency evidence for the agent does not exist. That's a ridiculous research burden on the affirmative. In other words, there's some negative burden here. So, basically, I tend to have a bias towards the affirmative on most counterplan theory issues. That's just my tilt when I walk in the room. Make your theory arguments and have them make sense (not one-line blips), give them an impact, and I’ll give them a fair hearing. I also recognize that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do when you are Negative (especially when confronted with a new case). 33 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Butt, Neil John Carrol Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear. Long Version: I have personal predispositions on a number of arguments and theoretical positions, but so far that doesn’t seem to affect how I judge. I’ve always been open to just about anything, and often surprise myself with my willingness to vote on new things that I didn’t think would be persuasive until I heard them debated. If you are going for critical arguments make sure the explanations are clear (I haven’t read much 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, go for it. I like to learn. Important Exception: Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary. I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Affirmatives are succeeding with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Negatives are succeeding with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate. (By the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time. It’s closer to 45% this year—check out Bruschke’s site.) I am increasingly concerned that certain “argument” types are marginalizing segments of our community or raising entry barriers too high, but I’m not yet ready to impose those beliefs—you’ll need to make those arguments yourselves. And don’t assume: The argument types and practices I think are marginalizing aren’t the ones I’ve heard most people attack over the last couple of years. It’s almost the opposite! :) I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way. 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 “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 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 take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it. Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I did just that at Augustana this year—so much for preferences and predispositions…). 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. Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them. If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, e.g.: I used to read no more than 5 cards after a debate (then I got that rule changed). I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out, e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc. Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain punishments fit certain crimes. I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past). 34 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck, folks! 35 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Carver, Joseph *Number of YEARS Judging:* High School: 15 College: 8 *Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic)*: High School: 5 College: 0 *Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic)*: High School: 50 College: 0 University of Michigan/ Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Rounds Judged – 0 I am even less informed than in year passed on the topic ( insert joke here). I suspect that a result of my lack of college rounds will mean that I read more evidence after debates. Other than that, the rest of this should be more or less accurate. I will be happy to accommodate any team who requests that I be replaced my a lay critic. I am significantly less K friendly than I have been in years past. For those who don't preference me what that means is I am more than just skeptical of critical alternatives that attain their competitiveness through artificial text like "reject the affirmative and fill in the blank". I think that this is not only a lazy, argumentative strategy but also is a terrible misrepresentation of what your authors more than likely advocate. I also am suspicious of free flowing 1NC's which seek to establish their links in the 2AC's "what the hell does this mean" answers. Positioning yourself to be indecipherable then claiming that your indecipherability is the result of your exclusion is not persuasive. Links should be more a direct result of the plan action/ language/ effect rather than a result of attempting to meet topical burdens. Lastly, I have a low threshold for dismissing criticisms that lack an alternative. It could be a result of my vagabond spirit but I rarely find " the k turns the case" as credible offense(nay saying is a form of passive nihilism). I read a bit of the literature so maybe that means you are a little better off with me than the average nonreader in the K debates but I don't like to see these debates shake down like a disadvantage debate because the claims that these authors make require more articulation than that. I will vote on the K but you have to do the work recommended above to make it happen. I enjoy Counter-plan/Disadvantage debates. To me, a tricky counterplan and net benefit is a lot more fun than a critical debate.What things should you be wary of if you go this route in front of me ? I think that I focus first and foremost on questions of competitiveness. The more "neat and tidy" the PIC, the better your arguments and evidence better be on the question of the permutation. Secondly, I am always interested in a good theory debate. My mind is open on questions of the legitimacy of conditional/dispositional counterplans. It is important that theory debates slow down to some extent in the final rebuttles because, while I feel comfortable keeping the flowing up, I want to be able to make some evaluations of the interaction of the answers DURING the speech which requires you to do more than extend your taglines. If your counterplan/plan debate becomes a question of solvency specificity I recommend that you be 36 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet take the time to articulate solvency deficits or answers to solvency deficits clearly. Do not rely on the risk of the disadvantage to make the solvency deficit of your counterplan disappear. It is better to resolve these questions for me than to leave them to the post round evaluation. All permutations should be written out so that I can view them at the end of the round if necessary and , if you are negative, you had better be sure what those permutations say. I feel little sympathy for those who pull the "Ans. To Perm" frontline that you wrote only to find that the ever so nuanced affirmative has anticipated them correctly and dealt with them accordingly. Finally, I am fine with counterplans that derive their net benefit critically and would only say that all the aforementioned critical tips apply. I am way more skeptical of links and uniqueness when it comes to disadvantages than I am of impacts. I suppose I am from the uniqueness school of disadvantage debates and think that the crafting of this years resolution has drawn even more attention to this already important question in debates. I am not a super jurisdictional debate fan BUT I will vote on Topicality. These debates are typically a question of competing interpretations and division of ground for me . I don't feel persuaded by the question of 'jurisdiction" and I reluctantly invoke the power to ignore a solid substantive debate for the purpose of rejecting an affirmative on a topicality question. Perhaps more indicative is that in one hundred or so rounds judged, teams have only gone for it in front of me six times. I do find topicality as an effective form of redress to affirmatives that simply don't defend the resolution. Don't be afraid to go for this debate in front of me. If you are right, you are right. As for affirmative plans etc, I recommend that your advantages stem from the effect of a welldefined plan. I don't dismiss affirmatives that take a different approach out of hand but I am a little skeptical of both their fairness as well as their place in an activity that relies on fair divisions of ground and competition at its core. I am sure that some of the choices that these affirmatives make are important discussions but I continue to question the tactical manner of their deployment. There are so many non competitive forums for redress of some of these questions that go ignored, under utilized and roundly dismissed that I become more and more hardened to the calls of affirmatives that want me to recognize some personal complicity in something as a reason to reject another team. At my simplest, I think you should defend a plan and have advantages that stem from it .I am open to debates about what fiat should mean but I confess to having a conservative view of its use. Did I leave anything out? I am a pretty decent flow and am not afraid to ask you to slow down or be clearer should I need it. I value courtesy and I am truly tired of debaters slinging humorous insults or trash talking. In my opinion it represents your inability to grasp that this is a TIMED activity or that you have nothing relevant to say. My points range is generally 27.5-29 with the possibility to exceed or fail to meet depending on performance. I call for a few cards at the end of debates and am willing to read anything that the debaters ask me to assuming it has been extended legitimately in the debate. 37 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Ceren, Omri General Issues - I believe that debate is a strategic and competitive game. The technical, line-by-line style of traditional debate is virtually unique in the way that it demands of the competitors and the judge a combination of broad knowledge and microanalysis. I believe that the kind of education that is fostered by engaging in such a style is among the most valuable opportunities available to both debaters and judges. On the other hand, I also believe that the impartiality of a specialized judge to the arguments being presented is crucial to preserving the educational value of debate. I would thus describe my overarching biases in the following ways: (1) I will be unsympathetic to arguments that call for me to adjudicate a round based on my personal feelings about the arguments. In other words, I will not vote because I walked into the round agreeing with a particular advocacy, nor will I be persuaded by calls to reject the opposing team or their arguments because of a reaction that I have had to a piece of poetry or a snippet of song. However, I should distinguish these types of arguments from, for instance, a call on me to join a movement because that movement has been proven efficacious during the round. Those are two different kinds of arguments - the distinction is that in the latter case, the _reason_ for why I should join the movement has been provided, rather than relying on my personal feelings. (2) I will vote usually on dropped arguments no matter how poorly justified provided that they have met a minimum threshold of intelligibility. I will ignore arguments that I feel are completely unwarrented. (3) I will try to do my utmost to put aside the biases that I outline above and below and to let the debaters decide how I should adjudicate a round. I am a very flow-based and technical judge, and I enjoy fast, rigorous debate and argumentation regardless of the actual content of the debate. I will flow arguments, poetry, songs, etc - if I'm not flowing then I'm probably not following the debate. (4) Finally, I try to evaluate all arguments based on offense / defense distinctions - I have trouble conceptualizing how there could ever be zero risk of anything whether it be of an advantage, of a disad, or of abuse on a conditionality debate. A counterplan that solves the entirety of the case and has a whisper of a net benefit will be a quick negative win. Short of dropped arguments, I doubt that I will ever vote either way on presumption. Counterplans - I am pretty liberal when it comes to counterplan theory. With certain exceptions (utopian fiat, individual fiat) a negative pretty much gets every advocacy that is not the 1AC, although I'm open on even these exceptions and I invite theoretical debates either way. I have no idea whether an illegitimate counterplan is a reason to reject the team or the counterplan, although for what its worth in the past I have tended to think that at least on a link level, theoretically illegitimate advocacies uniquely skew affirmative time allocation. By default, I believe that a permutation must include all of the affirmative plan and any part of the negative advocacy and I'm not sure what the consequences of illegitimate permutations are. In the absence of explicit argumentation about various models of competition, I tend to default to a crude version of textual competition. Performance / Pre-fiat argumentation - I tend to believe that fiat is an efficacious tool for helping debaters evaluate the consequences of policy actions. Nonetheless, I have very much enjoyed debates this year where both teams were willing to suspend this assumption and debate out the (critical) consequences of an affirmative presentation. I am very frustrated, however, by rounds which were not technical or flowbased. There seem to be roughly four categories that pre-fiat (or rather non-fiat) arguments fall into. In order of my decreasing bias against them: (1) Performance affs that negate the resolution - These are affirmatives that criticize the resolution, whether through a performative demonstration or (more recently) implicitly through the presentation of an aggressively untopical plan. I am overwhelmingly likely to vote against such affirmatives on topicality. I tend to believe that affirmatives should have to go aff on the aff, with all of the messy question begging that such a statement implies aside. That being said, I have voted for such affirmatives this year when the negative has not run topicality, and once when the negative did run topicality but, I suppose somewhat ironically, got out-teched on the argument. (2) Negative kritiks of form - Most recently, these indicts have been indicts of technical, flogocentric debating. I am unsympathetic to such arguments and think that the affirmative would be well-served to provide a spirited defense of technical, line-by-line debating. I will arguments about marginalization as impact turns to such defenses in the same way that I evaluate other arguments, but it would be dishonest of me not to say that I am predisposed against such arguments. (3) Topical performance affs - These are topical affirmatives that justify the resolution in a way other than by demonstrating that a post-fiat world would be more advantageous than the status quo (i.e. the judge should sign the 38 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet ballot to affirm a movement or rupture their own subjectivity). I think that while such affirmatives are topical, I tend to default negative when there is an explicit defense of fiat coupled with a net beneficial alternative (either the status quo because of a disad or a counterplan because of a net benefit). On the other hand, I have yet to see a single round where such a defense was made, and I have almost always voted affirmative in rounds with these kinds of affirmatives. (4) "Fiat is illusory, judge" - These are more traditional kinds of kritiks that, nonetheless, still call upon the judge to ignore what would happen if the affirmative policy was passed and implemented. They can be very powerful, but an affirmative that provides a defense of fiat will usually at least be able to convince me to evaluate the advantages that take place in a post-fiat world alongside the in-round impacts of the negative advocacy. For example, a negative could win that affirmative nuke-speak causes the participants of a debate round to be numbed to nuclear discourse and that therefore there is a tiny chance that nuclear war will be more likely in the real world unless the judge rejects the affirmative. If the affirmative wins that fiat is valuable and that in the post-fiat world the plan would stop a nuclear war, then I would weigh stopping the slight risk of nuclear war by voting negative versus stopping a large risk of a nuclear war by voting affirmative. On the other hand, if the affirmative said nothing about fiat, I would most likely default negative. Critical, post-fiat arguments - Contrary to what my views on performance might imply, I believe that critical literature is interesting, educational, and strategically useful. I enjoy listening to and adjudicating rounds grounded in this type of literature. I am very sympathetic to arguments that have an assumptive impact on the way in which the affirmative justified why a post-fiat world would be preferable to the status quo. Examples of such arguments include Spanos on a security assistance topic or feminist jurisprudence on a discrimination topic - these positions attack the ontological and methodological assumptions that are implicit in the justification for the 1AC. Such arguments will more often question the assumptions of the epistemic community from which the affirmative draws their evidence than of the affirmative team per se, although I also think that the structure of the 1AC can betray the assumptions that would be carried into a post-fiat world. Regardless, the affirmative should assume that a good negative team will find a link to a well-developed kritik. That being said, I also firmly believe that a kritik can never take out 100% of solvency (if for no other reason than because of the specificity of affirmative solvency evidence). There must be an offensive reason why the assumptions that would be carried into the implementation of the plan make a post-fiat world worse than the status quo. Such kritiks need not be just non-unique disads however - they can question the framework through which what the plan causes seems like a "good idea." A kritik of development that calls into question the telos of progress doesn't necessarily say that the affirmative "makes things worse" but rather that the entire schema by which certain things are judged better and certain things are judged worse must be reevaluated because of its destructive nature. In such a case, where the negative has offensive reasons why the affirmative framework is bad and the affirmative has nothing to say about the framework, there is a situation of all offensive versus not even any defense, and I will most likely vote negative. Theory - I try to evaluate these arguments in a very technical and flow-oriented way, which is to say that a team that wants to win on on theory must answer every argument from the other team. An affirmative can very rarely win on theory if the 1AR doesn't cover every block argument. On the other hand, if those dropped negative arguments are entirely defensive in nature, an affirmative may still win provided that the theoretical debate is framed in offense/defense terms (it is difficult to imagine, however, what a purely defensive theoretical argument might be most arguments are at least implicitly offensive such that if they are dropped they are devastating on a theory debate). Procedural issues almost always trump substantive issues - whether a team's justification for something is adequate or inadequate is predicated on their being given a fair opportunity to justify it in the first place, and when that opportunity doesn't exist I am more than willing to vote on fairness grounds. Topicality - I tend to default affirmative on topicality except in the cases that I outline above. Generic ground usually provides adequate preparation, especially on this year's topic. On the other hand, I admire teams that regularly utilize topicality as a strategic argument rather than simply as a necessary check for fairness reasons, and will evaluate it in the same way that I evaluate any other theoretical or procedural argument. 39 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Choi, Eun Young I would like to preface this judging philosophy with two points of reflection. (1) The only community on Planet Earth that would regard me as a “reactionary conservative” (not my own words) or even right of center is the debate community. I find this fascinating for multiple reasons; most importantly, I do not think I am as averse to non-traditional arguments as people believe me to be, enough for Dallas to label me a “hack.” I find myself voting for critical and performance based arguments all the time because the people who run them are good at deploying them and their opponents are bad at answering them. Bad refutation is a more egregious problem than not running a disad. That being said, I spend my waking moments reading about the fair use doctrine and prior restraints on speech, not Zizek. (2) I have only judged 15 or so rounds on this topic, most of them not focusing on fossil fuels. If there is something complex about your argument it will have to be explained to me. I did debate on renewables way back in yesteryear so I know most of the general climate and oil arguments, but the world is a different place now. General thoughts of things that are good and bad for you if you have me as a judge: Comparative impact analysis is good. Turning the case is good. I will vote on “Economic decline turns biopower” if it is not answered. Well thought out, competitive PICS with specific net benefits and/or ways you solve better than the case are good. Really good. Even if the net benefits aren’t disads. Testing the plan is good. Well-reasoned rationales for me to vote for you are good. Especially if you are performing with puppets. If you don’t have one, then I suggest taking a thick Sharpie and striking me. Telling me that I shouldn’t feel coerced/compelled to vote for you, and instead I should “do my own thing” is bad: I will probably not vote for you. (Note: I think Jethro has my back on this one). Contradictory arguments are bad. Conditional arguments are ok if you can prove they aren’t abusive. Answering the other side’s theory arguments and warrants is good. Simply reading generic answers is bad. Link stories are good. They help explain probability x magnitude. Thinking about the uniqueness implications of arguments made on other parts of the flow is good. Very good. Presumptions are good. Explaining the status of the CP is good. Competing interpretations are good. Defense can be good. If you’re aff, proving no risk of a disad is good and may be dispositive, even if you don’t have offense. Humor and sass are good; poorly executed inside jokes are bad. Rudeness is bad. Doing work for me is good. Yelling at me for not making the cross applications for you is bad. Reference to specific cards in last two rebuttals is good. Cavalier extensions of cards are bad. 40 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Saying you were the 6th place at CEDA Nats when you dropped in the doubles is weak sauce. 41 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Cisneros, David To start off, I thought I’d give my general leanings on debate issues. As a general caveat, like everybody else I have specific ways of looking at debate, but with a few exceptions I can be persuaded to disregard my beliefs/predispositions and vote on an argument I disagree with if you argue it well. I ultimately enjoy judging, but I think debate is for the debaters not for the judge so debate what you like to debate just do it well. Here I go: 1. Topicality – I think topicality is a voting issue. I tend to see the topicality debate as one about competing interpretations with the team that proves why their interpretation is best for debate, both in that particular round and in debate as a whole, winning. If you’re going for T I think you should spend time on it and impact it more than just “they have no counter interpretation!” 2. Theory – I don’t mind theory debates and think they can be interesting and fun to judge. I tend to lean Neg. on most theory mainly because I was a slimy 2n. If your strategy is to go for PICs bad every debate, the best advice I can give you is to slow down a little bit and articulate your arguments and their impacts. I’m not as persuaded by the fact that they dropped your f subpoint as I am by the fact that you’re explaining why PICs or whatever are bad. I will vote on dropped theory arguments but I think they need to be explained. Even if they concede it I think you need to explain and recap your argument and why it’s a voting issue even just a little bit. 3. Counterplans – I like them. I ran them a lot. I don’t really have many problems with counterplans. Like I said, I probably lean towards the Neg. on theory. I think most CPs are good except maybe for crazy utopian counterplans and abusive things like fiating the object. 4. Disads – Who has a problem with them really? I’m a fan of politics and other generic disads. Of course I prefer specific ones to the case. I sort of fall into the “risk” camp. I usually evaluate debates based on the risk of the disads versus the risk of the case solving and the respective impacts of each. I think that you should win uniqueness, but can be persuaded that even if the disad isn’t 100% unique I should vote on it because there’s a huge risk of the link. Although offense is sweet, I think that defensive answers can beat a disad. Even if the Aff. has no uniqueness for their turns, if they win solid defensive takeouts I think they can eliminate much to all of the risk of a DA. 5. I enjoy Kritik debates. That being said, I generally have two comments based on the rounds I’ve judged and the debates I had back in the dizzle. First, I think the Neg should rely more on specific link and impact arguments than their generic Zizek or Lacan cards. I think you’ll get much farther explaining why the case links, why it turns back the case, etc., instead of just reading twenty cards about incrementalism being bad. For the Aff, I think you should make more specific answers to their Kritik both in terms of the Kritik their reading and what your case does specifically. You don’t need to read the Krishna card every debate; just talk about how/why your case answers the K and why their kritikal method is flawed. 6. Performance and its relatives – I think that these arguments are valuable and important for debate, but I generally think they should follow the basic rules. That is, I think the Aff should have a plan and should defend it. I think generally they should be topical, or at least reasonably so. And, I think that there has to be a point to voting affirmative. Other than that have at it, as long as the other team has reasonable ground to debate you. In general, I flow the speeches and CX. You could consider me a technical judge, and I work very hard in making my decision. I rely heavily on the last two rebuttals to tell me how to vote so make decisions and explain them. Other than that, I don’t mind speed, slowness or any other stylistic stuff as long as you’re clear. Be nice and respectful to the other team. Avoid offensive remarks in any way. Don’t steal prep and/or be mean to your partner. And above all, have fun and enjoy debate because after you’re done you’ll wish you could go back and do it all over again, believe me I do. 42 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Coleman, Kerry I have not judged very many debates on this topic, so keep that in mind and don’t assume that I know what your acronyms mean or how your solvency mechanism functions. I prefer disadvantages and counterplans to critics because I tend to find them easier to understand and evaluate. I am not predisposed against critical arguments and would rather hear a critique/critical aff debated well than politics debated poorly, but it would benefit you to give a clear and detailed explanation of your argument and how it functions in the round. I have likely not heard of your authors and if your explanation is not clear, I will be confused and you will not be happy with my decision. Left to my own devices I suppose I lean negative on most theory arguments and topicality, but I don’t have strong feelings either way. Offensive reasons why your interpretation is better for debate are more compelling then defensive reasons why your plan/conditional cp/etc. is not abusive. Things I don’t like: Overviews that list reasons why you win the debate. I can figure that out on my own, thanks. Your time is better spent explaining how your impacts interact with each other and the other team’s arguments. Think big picture, don’t list your top 10 arguments. Block reading at the expense of clash. Especially on theory. This is debate, not oratory, and if all you do is repeat your arguments without engaging the other team’s arguments, I’ll be sad. Same deal for listing your authors without explaining their arguments or comparing them to your opponents cards. Meanness. It’s pretty important to me that you be nice to each other. Debate is supposed to be fun and educational; no one benefits from rudeness, negativity or arrogance. If you think you’re awesome, prove it by winning the debate and treating your opponents (and your partner) with respect. 43 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Coulter, Ben Samford Theory: I err towards policy making as a framework for the round unless the debaters in the round win/agree to adopt a different framework. As a general rule, I lean fairly heavily towards the idea that the affirmative must defend a topical plan, although I have voted the other way several times. I generally feel that debates where aff doesn’t have to defend the topic are a debacle for the neg. Finally, I am willing to cut the affirmative some slack if the topicality argument is not explained clearly when presented. As far as counterplans, I lean towards the negative on most theory issues, but only slightly so. I will willingly listen to arguments about dispo, PICs, etc. A word on independent voting issues. I think that you need to provide a clear warrant for why something is a voting issue and why it can/should be separated from the rest of the arguments in the debate. However, I expect debaters to answer "bad" arguments on the flow. Topic Specific Arguments: I’m a fan of big case specific disadvantage and counterplan debates. I am very likely to scrutinize link arguments carefully. I also enjoy good case debates with evidence comparisons and warrant explanation. I require the affirmative to debate out the case arguments, don’t just expect me to read a bunch of cards. Critiques/Performance/etc: I am willing to evaluate them any way you like, but I expect some arguments from debaters about the way the case, plan, and critique interact. I have to understand the viewpoint you are asking me to take, or I will defer to my own predispositions. Evidence: I’ll read evidence after a round, but I am much more dependable if debaters guide my reading of those cards. I am also reading fewer cards these days than I once might have. I try to rely on the way the evidence is debated in the round (to the extent this is possible). Any team making an evidence challenge should have the original, and the victory and 0 speaker points are in the balance. Style: I’ll say clear one time if you are not comprehensible. After that, it is on you to figure it out. I believe an argument should be a claim and a warrant. Any kind of CX is fine, but I will penalize debaters who are rude to other debaters and/or their partners. I will reward humor, kindness towards others, and smart explanations of arguments. I would prefer four well evidenced and explained arguments to eight bad arguments. However, I also feel relatively tied to the flow. In general, if you have a good time, are nice, and make smart arguments then you are in good shape with me. One final word. Please do not steal prep time. Time is a resource both sides have, and good teams use theirs well. I think this is cheating of the same basic type as "clipping" cards. 44 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet D'Amico, Steve I decided that since I’ve judged at a few tournaments now it would be appropriate for me to write a judging philosophy. Here are the common questions people ask and my answers: 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, unless told to otherwise. Do I lean more towards the left (ks; performance) or to the right (DAs etc)? I honestly enjoy both straight up policy debates and more funky debates. I am very thankful I get to judge a variety of different types of debates at each tournament. I really don’t “lean” either way. Anything special we should know if we plan on rolling with disads and counter plans? Not really. Impact discussions are helpful. Anything special we should know if we are running a critique? I suspect, and have been told, that I may emphasize the alternative more than other folks. I’m honestly not sure if this is true or not, but I would suspect there is an element of truth here. Explaining what the world of the alternative looks like is very helpful. Also impact discussions are a must. Anything special we should know if we are a “performance.” Nothing yet, I haven’t had a chance to judge one. Anything special we should know if we are going for T? I enjoy T debates. I’ve only gotten to see one, and it was poor. This makes me sad. Anything about your flow we should know about? I’ve been going back and forth between flowing on my laptop and using paper. I take notes during CX. Anything we should know about speaker points? As a first year judge assigning speaker points is a challenge. I’ll do my best. I am not a fan of cursing and it will probably make you lose half a speaker point unless it’s in card-text or if there is some actual purpose besides looking cool. You don’t. 45 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Deatherage, Scott Northwestern Some things you should know about the intersection of my judge philosophy and the topic: While I have not been a fan of agent specification, I am more inclined to vote negative on the argument that the plan must include specific implementation mechanisms. This is certainly not automatic, but in general, my sense is that the definition of “implement” in a treaty context suggests that specific domestic enabling steps are required. Grounded in the meaning of “implement,” this is really a topicality question more than an artificial ground issue, distinguishing it from agent specification. Self-executing treaties (Death Penalty) probably require no specific method of implementation. Big warfighting debates are among my favorite, but are the most difficult to decide. The best are those where participants emphasize the importance of evidence compairsion. Slow down. Cut out a couple of arguments. Spend your time resolving competing link stories by way of detailed contrast of evidence. Your CTBT debates will be much better if you heed this advise. I don’t really follow why so much time is devoted to the “no fiat” versus “fiat” dispute in critical debates. FIAT is not real??? Who knew??? Weather you operate from a fiat centered view of the universe, or instead see yourself and the judge as activists who seek to change the world, you are nonetheless arguing that the world ought to be different. From this framework, the Death Penalty is objectionable because it is state sponsored murder. From one model, we can seek to wish it away with the magic wand of fiat. From an alternative model, we can wish it away via individual opposition. In any event, it is not in the world of worlds likely to disappear anytime soon. Does an activist stance mean that political effects are not relevant??? Probably not. An activist may effectively argue that political considerations should not govern moral choices, which is different from saying that there are no political consequences of a proposed action. Fiat or no fiat, the simple question remains: what are the upside and downsides to eliminating the Death Penalty? Or, in the alternative, what method is best employed to attain its abolition? In both the gaming and activists, the benefits and disadvantages of change are hypothetical. Counterfactuals. I have no problem with the use of empirical evidence to justify proposed change. I can probably even be convinced that we should have employed a particular solution to a past event. (Highly debatable, but I could pull the trigger). HOWEVER, I think it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that you can convince me that the affirmative does not have to advocate one of the topic treaties. Per above, weather they advocate it by fiat or activism makes little difference to me, but they have to say that to “ratify or accede to, and implement” their treaty of choice “should” be done. Non-topic treaties. Your chance of getting me to vote affirmative in favor of a treaty not listed in The topic wording is less than zero. The negative team would have to be blitheringly incompetent. Yes, I understand that I am excluding your voice. Want to debate about other treaties??? Submit a topic paper, go on a campaign to gain support for it in the future. We had an opportunity for extended discussion of the COMPETING topic wording choices, and the case in favor of more treaties was not on balance persuasive. Oldies but goodies: I grow a little softer on dispositionality. At the end of the debate, the negative is responsible for the implications of their counter plan. If the affirmative wins offense against it, said offense is entered onto the affirmative side of the net benefits ledger. However, the negative is not required to defend the CP tooth and nail; they could, for instance, concede that it does not solve the case, abandon the time required to work through a series of solvency deficits, permutations, and the like, in favor of playing defense on the case and trying to win a disad or a kritik. If that’s what you mean by “revert to the status quo, fine. Both the plan and the counter plan are proposed amendments to the status quo. Conditionality is still bad. If you wish to try and get me to vote negative on a PIC, your best shot is to convince me that your CP isn’t really a PIC. It may look like the plan, small like the plan, be very similar to the plan, but it may not be a PIC. Agent CPs are 46 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet not PICS, but they are probably not competitive if the affirmative does not specify an agent. If your CP is a precise subset of the affirmative plan, it’s a PIC. If your CP is a recantation of the plan with a two word change, it is only not a PIC if its net benefits grow exclusively from the proposed word change. K: Old school Ks are often sounding more and more like disads these days. And “the alternative” sounds more and more like a CP. To get me to vote negative on a K: (a) work really really really hard to make your generic link arguments fit the specifics of the affirmative; (b) explain why use of international law, for example, is uniquely bad in the proposed circumstance; (c) why your alternative is competitive with the affirmative or any combination or the affirmative and the alternative; (d) be as specific as possible in defending how your alternative works to solve the case. (Oh, wait: that’s how you get me to vote negative in agent CP debates too!!!) “The affirmative uses the state” probably won’t get it. “The ICC masks state autonomy under the vale of international law; that’s uniquely bad because it blocks real reform (status quo reform or proposed competitive alternative reform),” just might. Negation is not an alternative. You could try 1000 times to get me to vote negative on negation and I’d probably vote affirmative 999 times. Performance: Don’t get your hopes up. The biggest problem with performance debates is that performing teams provide no defendable criteria for why I should pick their method of performance over that of their opponent. Should I pick your performance because it is more persuasive? More artistic? Because it opens my thinking? Whatever your answer, you must defend why your criteria is important and why it is preferable to competitive alternatives, typically gaming (policy-making). If you think you should win simply because you have opened my eyes to an issue in a unique way, think again. My eyes are opened. Now the question is (a) should this problem in fact be tackled?; (b) on balance, what approach is the best method of attack? 47 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet DeLaughder, Ken Emporia Make Good Arguments. 48 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet DeVault, Christopher Background: Debated at Wake Forest University for three years, and am currently an assistant coach at the University of Mary Washington. This is my third year judging. I’ve judged about 60 debates on this topic. Caveat: This judging philosophy merely describes my predispositions and opinions about this activity. None of these beliefs supercede the specific arguments made in the debates I judge. I frequently vote for arguments I dislike, so if you do not capitalize on the fact that I am predisposed against a certain argument and do not properly answer the other team’s positions, do not expect me to fall back on my predispositions and do the work for you. Affirmatives: I strongly believe that the affirmative should read and defend the desirability of a plan that a) advocates federal government action, and b) supports the resolution. Teams that do not read plans will have a very difficult time winning if the negative makes the necessary framework arguments. Negatives: I believe that successful negative arguments prove either that a) the affirmative plan would be worse than the status quo or b) that a competitive (preferably policy) alternative would be a more desirable option to endorse than the affirmative plan. Arguments that are not based on refuting plan desirability are less persuasive to me. Topicality: is ALWAYS a voting issue, is NEVER a reverse voting issue, is not genocidal, ethnocidal or any other “-cidal.” I think topicality is about competing interpretations, and thus believe that limits and educational benefits are more important than lit checks abuse, prior notice, and no ground loss. Comparison of the competing interpretations is a must. Evaluate what cases are allowed and disallowed and what debates would look like under each interpretation. Specification arguments: Not the biggest fan of Spec arguments, but I do think that if the affirmative does not specify their agent in the plan text, they should in the cross-ex if asked. I cannot stand the “We’ll specify our agent for disads but reserve the right to permute your agent counterplan” clarification. I do think that the affirmative should know the rationale for decision if they specify the court. Beyond that, spec arguments begin to border on absurd nitpicking and probably won't carry much weight. Disads: PLEASE run them. PLEASE go for them. Why are disads going out of style? They are essential to determine the desirability of the plan. I will take a politics debate over a furniture dance party any round. I think the direction of the link is usually more important than controlling uniqueness. If you are pressed for time, preference the new link arguments over 5 more “Bush will win now” cards. The 2NR definitely needs to present multiple reasons why the disad outweighs or turns the case. Just saying end of the world - Mead is not persuasive to anyone. Counterplans: My theory defaults are that conditionality/dispositionality are legitimate, PICs are good, international/individual/object/multiple actor counterplans are more suspect. I rarely think that theoretical voting issues are reasons to reject the team instead of the argument, but I have voted affirmative on conditionality and PICs. Theory debates need to be well developed and delivered at a SLOWER RATE, and the implications need to be well explained. I was a terrible theory debater, and am not especially comfortable resolving these issues, so the more work you do for me here the better. I am predisposed to believe that functional competition is more persuasive than textual competition and that permutations are thought experiments to test the competitiveness of the counterplan rather than advocated policy options. Voting Issue Proliferation: Not a fan and will not vote on arguments labeled voting issues without a coherent, welldeveloped, warranted reason why the action being attacked requires me to vote against the other team. If based on your analysis, I cannot articulate why the abusive practice in question should be a voting issue, I won't reject the other team (obviously teams shouldn't just drop random voting issues at will - that's always a losing strat). Critiques: I really do not like critical arguments. I think that the central question of the debate is whether the plan is more desirable than the status quo or a counterplan, and most critiques I hear don’t come close to addressing that question. I find critiques that disprove the desirability of the plan mandates more persuasive than representation/discourse critiques. Both teams need to weigh and evaluate the implications to the critique against the 49 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet case impacts. Affirmatives seem to forget that they read a 1ac once the negative reads a K, and negatives never seem to articulate a quantifiable, substantive impact that stands a chance of outweighing the 1ac. Critique Alternatives: Critique debates are won and lost based on what the negative is allowed to advocate. I am easily persuaded by affirmative theoretical challenges to micropolitical or utopian critique alternatives. I think that debate rounds should be a comparison of competing macropolitical options, and find most of the current critical alternatives theoretically suspect. If the critique alternative includes the entire affirmative plan, I’ll vote affirmative. I’m specifically predisposed against floating PICs. You cannot advocate the affirmative advantages without a counterplan that solves them, and advocating the plan and all of the 1ac except some bad representation will tempt me to vote affirmative because you said the plan was a good idea. Language Critiques: I think that if a team reads a piece of evidence that contains offensive assumptions (gendered language, etc.), then an apology and discarding the offensive evidence is a sufficient recourse. I do not usually think these arguments are reasons to reject the team reading the evidence, especially if the reading of this offensive assumption was an accident. However, apathy or continuing to do the practice after the challenge will probably piss me off and make me consider voting against the apathetic team . Performance: I really do not like performance debates because of my tendency to view the resolution as a question concerning the desirability of a specific macropolitical action. Thus, I’m easily persuaded by "policy good" framework arguments, so you’ll have to do a good job defending the theoretical and substantive legitimacy of your framework. I also hate the tendency of performances to shift and mutate to dodge opposing arguments, and would prefer that the performative advocacies in the debate remain somewhat static and fixed (this might be wishful thinking, but I’d like to believe that it’s possible). If you’re going to perform in front of me, you definitely need to clearly isolate how to resolve the debate because I have no idea how to objectively evaluate and compare competing performances. Speaker points: my average is 27.5, will obviously go up or down depending on the speaker. I will rarely if ever give 30s. 28.5s and above are reserved for speeches that completely astound me. Things you can do to get higher points: draw out distinctions in your opponents and your evidence; make reasoned, well developed arguments and not blippy 3-word analytics; concede that you're not winning every argument in the round and making "even if we lose ..." weighing comparisions, etc. Things that will lower your speaker points: speaking incomprehensibly, rudeness (will not be tolerated in any circumstances), doing the opposite of the above "raise your speaker points" tips, etc. Post Round Discussion: Questions about the manner in which I resolved the debate are more than welcome, but I won't tolerate rudeness. Yelling at me, calling me an idiot for voting against you, or any other display of hostility or rudeness will cause me to stop the discussion and leave. We should be able to discuss the debate in a calm, civilized manner. 50 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Doris, Kathleen Graduate Assitant @ Wichita State University Judged Around 30 Rounds @ UCO, Emporia State, Missouri State and UNI General Judging Paradigm- I really like fiat, a lot. I am a fan of policy debate, just the way it is. I really do not want to intervene to resolve the debate and feel immense guilt if I think I am forced to because people did not tell me how I should evaluate the round. Counterplans/Theory- I won’t vote on theory arguments if I don’t understand the link to the theory argument or the impact. For instance, it is not enough to say the perm is severance and that’s an independent voting issue. I need to know what makes the perm a severance perm. And, I need to know why it’s bad to be a severance perm. If you want to win a round on theory, you should devote your entire rebuttal to it. Don’t waste the 15 seconds trying to win on a cheap shot. Topicality- I take topicality very seriously. I think plans should be topical. To me topicality, is the only way to keep debate fair in a world of unpredictable cases, insignificant cases or cases that are run by people who refuse to affirm the resolution. I find arguments about potential abuse and precedence less compelling than arguments about in round abuse. Kritiks- I only vote for krittiks when the following things are true: the krittik alternative solves the case, the alternative is net beneficial, the krittik links to the case in a specific and explicitly explained way, the krittik has an impact. If the krittik does not solve the case, that’s okay as long as the impact of the krittik turns the case or outweighs all of the case advantages. Just because the negative team says the word “krittik” I am unwilling to believe this means the case becomes irrelevant or that the case impacts no longer matter. Negatives team must make arguments that the krittik comes before the case. Saying “pre-fiat” or “fiat is illusory” is not enough. I don’t know what the first one means and I find the second one to be so obvious it is insulting when people point it out to me. The more you explain the krittik like it is a counterplan or a disad, the better off you’ll be. If things like: the causal connection between the plan and the krittik impacts or the krittik impacts or even what the krittik is, are not explained until the 2NC/1NR, there is no limit to what new answers I will allow a 1AR to make on this position. 51 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Downing, Jamie I'm basically a policy judge. I will listen to some kritiks, but only if they have relevance to the particular round. I'm not a big fan of kritik lingo, and I didn't run Ks when I debated. I know that you have more questions, ask them. 52 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Dunn, Matt I have very few dispositions as a judge. That is to say, I highly prefer policy debate to non-policy debate. Frankly, I enjoyed the act of debating more when I was debating other policy teams. I rarely enjoyed debating in rounds consisting largely or solely of critical arguments. Similarly, I prefer listening to policy debates as a judge. As for affirmative critiques, do what you will, but you better answer arguments or I will default to your "plan" being undesirable. The “Answers to Disads” block may be the worst contrivance ever. It’s nonsense. The individual who thought of it should have h(e)[i]®{s} knees broken. I generally don't think critique arguments foreclose the option of doing the plan. I'm not much one for "radical" change. Also, I don't think critiques in debate do much to effect broader social change. In fact, debate may be a highly inefficient venue for expressing activism. But the debate is “yours,” as they say, so do whatever you want. If some critique judge had refused to listen to my policy arguments, I would have been outraged and offended. I don’t want to outrage or offend you, so I won’t refuse to listen. Fair Warning: it may be harder for you to win your “framework” or your “performance” in light of my dispositions. But don’t feel like you need to hesitate (too much) in considering how to adapt to my preferences. Perhaps I should adapt to your preferences. No. I generally lean affirmative on topicality arguments unless specific examples of abuse are provided. Those examples of abuse don’t necessarily need to occur in the debate. I think the proliferation of non-topicality procedurals, e.g. the various “specs,” is stupid. I’m highly pro-counterplans, unless your counterplan is abusive. Most counterplans are fair. Consult counterplans are dubious. International fiat is good for debate. PICS are often necessary. Agent counterplans are boring (unless international), but fair nevertheless (probably). On policy positions, I tend to lean negative on theory arguments. On non-policy positions, I tend to lean affirmative (does that seem arbitrary and unfair to you?) Politics debates are a plus, and they don't even have to be about G(H?)WB. Also, go fast. Debate’s more fun that way. 53 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Dunn, Nate Wake Forest I believe that the round is what the participants make of it. I will let the competitors set their own parameters and then I will evaluate the round based on those rules. In case of conflicting frameworks, I'll evaluate the reasons for which frame work is prefferable and then apply it. While 99% of my experience in debate is with debates that feature a 1AC with stock issues, and a 1NC that features T, Procedurals, Disads, Kritiks, Counterplans, and straight up case arguments, I am interested in watching creative departures from traditional forms of debate. That being said if you are going to dance, get your groove on. If you are going to rap, your flow should be tight. If you are going to try to convince me that what you are doing is better than traditional debate, I should leave the room with the same appreciation for what you did as if I watched a really good round in the traditional format. Speaking of the traditional format, I'll adapt to what ever you give me. I won't hold anything against you except rudeness, offensive language or disrespect to the other team. You do not have to respect me, but you do have to respect each other. When I make my decision it is usually based on the following criteria For the Affirmative Team: I preffer affirmatives that clearly state why the status quo must be changed. If you want me to believe that your case is important than teach me about it. In my mind there is no set formula for what a 1AC should look or sound like, but a good 1AC is one that makes me want to write my local congressional representative after the round. If I don't understand what your case is about then it is more difficult to evaluate it against all of the other arguments in the round. 2ACs should be offensive, not just defensive responses to what was in the 1NC. I like to see disads and kritiks turned back on the negative team, but I'll let you slide if you win that the position is non unique or have a good link, internal link or impact take out. I tend to buy perms on kritiks, as long as they are evidenced and your link to the kritik doesn't swamp your perm. 1ARs are tough, do what you can to stay alive. The 2AR though, should be your soapbox speech. I LOVE a heartfelt and convincing 2AR overview. At that point in the round what has already been said on the flow can just be pulled across, I don't need you to explain your arguments all over again. I do however preffer to be swept off my feet by your conviction. If people are going to die, act like you care. If something terrible is going to happen describe it, and don't leave out the gory details. I'm in law school, I like the dramatic stuff. For the Negative: If the 1AC is a big tree, the 1NC should be a small axe (A chainsaw or a can of gas and some matches might also work). I'm fine with any sort of argument, but here are a few things you should know. To win Topicality you don't need to give me 20 blip arguments for standards or 7 voters. Its enough for me to give your definition, why its pretty good, and how the other team violates it. There's a rebuttable presumption that T is a voter, but its also good to show an example of abuse or specific ground loss. At the end of the round if T is close I'll move on and base my decision on other issues. As far as procedurals go, try to run these only if you feel that the other team has really been shady. Running a bunch of quick procedurals may seem like a good way to try to spread ot the 2AC, but I would personally have you spend that time addressing the 1AC. I rarely vote on procedureal unless the Aff has used the questionable plan text language to their advantage, I'll look for a way out of voting on procedural arguments. The negative team should clearly articulate a disad's link to the affirmatives plan, tell a good internal link scenario, and have a impact that outweights the case. As far as kritiks go, it is of the utmost importance that I understand what the position is all about. You have been reading the position for a couple of months, I haven't. I'm not smart enough to piece together random philosophical quotes. Treat me like I'm a little slow on the uptake and teach me about the position. If this means that you have to slow down for 30 seconds and explain your kritik to me then that's fine. The negative block should kick out of the arguments that they don't think they will go for in the end of the round and 54 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet spend quality time developing each position that they think is viable. 2NR's should pick one or two arguments that they think they have won and just go for them all the way. If you need to pull a bunch of things thats fine, but I basically want a 2NR to write my ballot for me. Tell me what my RFD should be. You don't need to pose all of the alternative ways that I could vote for you, pick the best. In the end I'll weight how well you sold your 2NR vs. what is in the 2AR. Scary huh? Its ok, I can handle what is going on in your round, I'm just being honest about how I make my decisions. If you have any questions, just ask me before the round. 55 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Dutcher, Jim Topicality/Theory: I find it very difficult to vote on potential abuse. If you want to win topicality or theory you should modify your arguments around some actual example(s). I deplore shallow, tag-line theory debate. Run fewer arguments so that you can develop them. The K: I do not mind the theoretical implications that this type of argumentation is grounded in but I do mind the way debaters bastardize the theories that they are trying use. I am inclined away from critical positions but I have voted on them in the past, mostly when the other team messes up the framework debate. Counterplans: I think these are an excellent way for the Neg to limit the debate down to a manageable set of arguments. The theory debate does tend to get very shallow. Arguments: The world is not as black and white as most debaters want to think. Political capital and the economy can be increasing and decreasing at the same time. It is up to the debaters to take their opponents’ arguments into account when they are extending their own. This goes for the rest of the debate. A team could be winning the case but losing a disad or they could be winning a counterplan that does not solve 100% of the case. Explain why you are winning and what I would be voting for in the end. If you fail to do either or both of these thing I will have to read the evidence and what you think it says might be different than what I think it says. The rest of the story: I like well-developed arguments. Wayne State has several coaches and we each have our own “specialty,” mine happens to be any thing military. This means that I do not know as much about the cases in the other areas of the topic. Just be careful with the jargon. Finally, I feel that debate is an educational activity and participants should be civil to each other. I will give you one warning if I think you have stepped over the line. If you do not heed that warning: I will exact a revenge on your speaker points that you will not soon forget. 56 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Dutcher, Mike Topicality/Theory: I like a good T debate and really hate a bad one. Giving good examples of abuse and ground loss do wonders for evaluating T. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of A Spec or Over Spec but I can see some merits to Implementation Specification. Funding and Enforcement specification will most likely not win my ballot. As far as counter plan theory goes I am fairly open to most forms of counter plan, however, I despise Consultation CPs. Be forewarned, I will hold the CP to the same solvency burden as the plan. A generic "we should consult NATO," card will not cut it with me in the back of the room. Steal the funding CP or a penny less CP, try those in front of another judge, not me. The K/Performance: I have to say that as I grow older, I do become more conservative. While I think that this topic is a great vehicle for opening more space for the K this because of the specific arguments that can be made about each treaty, this has just not materialized, at least in my mind. I have voted for the K in rounds but I will make the caveat that it's mostly because of bad Aff answers. I will say this: I do believe that you have to defend your advocacy/plan. If you demand/advocate the ratification of the 2nd Optional Protocol (for example), I have the expectation that you defend it. I don't care if some may view that as unreasonable. You might consider placing me low in your preferences if you advocate a treaty that's not in this years topic or if your affirmative and/or negative strategy is based on reading poetry. I will do my best if I do make it into one of those style debates but no one will be happy with my decision, especially me. DA's: Love 'em. One warning though: try to avoid running DAs that have the same impact as the affirmative advantages. This year I have voted affirmative several times because the Negative loses the case impact which just happens to be the same impact as the DA thus making the impact to the DA non unique. Diversify your impacts. Not sure if I'm leaving anything out but I will say this: Have fun. Don't be a jerk. Have a great time and enjoy the debate and that will mean I do too. 57 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Eastwood, Wally Everything here is simply my initial inclination on issues. There can be reasons to vote outside of these inclinations. If a team executes a strategy and wins it - I will vote for it. It is your round – enjoy the ride – just make sure I am along for it. That said… T – Affirmatives should probably be topical – however it is that you explain it is your choice – I ran many an obscure case in my time. If you run Topicality please do not fly through it in the 1NC – especially if it is a serious strategy. I think it should be debated like a DA – make sure your links/violation is clear and most importantly make sure I understand the impact – that means standards – fairness and ground are probably good places to start. Clean and clear is key. Theory – I like a good theory debate – wherever on the flow it may be - If this is how you plan to win a round however – you should put the time in. The groundwork must be laid for there to be legitimate voting issues. Theory saved my ass a time or two – but was also a priority strategy on a few occasions. Same as with T – make sure I have an impact to evaluate and make sure you are not just flying through it. CPs – I love me a good CP and DA dabait – if you have a CP that solves some case stuff and avoids some other bad stuff – well than - I’d say that’s a pretty tight strategy. What is a “legitimate” CP? Well why don’t you tell me. Delegation, Courts, ConCon, Anarchy, I mean I had fun with all of them – but it is your job to execute it. If its got a net benefit and is mutually exclusive – we’re good. Evidence –I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round so be selective. I hope to hear your evidence the first time it is read and hope that it is good. I will call for evidence if it is in question or if it is referenced in the last rebuttals as relevant to my decision calculus. I would prefer to hear evidence comparisons as appose to more evidence. Anyone can read cards, I want to hear you talk about them. 58 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet To be “Kritical” or “the other” – or whatever it you crazy kids are calling it nowadays – if you are running some type of “off case” position – I need to understand the link first – meaning it should be mutually exclusive with the other teams advocacy - and then be provided a clear vision of why I am voting for the argument – implication - such as a reason to reject the other team. Don’t assume that I know the intricacies of your argument or the arguments that your authors may make. It is your job to do the extra work to explain it to me. This should not scare you off. If you’ve got a project – ill be down with your project – I just want you to talk to me – let me understand how you and the other team and I fit into your project. I would much rather listen to you talk to me, then be forced to listen to a bunch of cards from some dude who’s name I cant spell – and then be expected to know how that relates to anything. I reward educational, entertaining and original debate. The Rest – I hope to vote for whoever executes and communicates their strategy best to me – things you can do to help achieve this - use your cx – it is speech time – watch my non-verbals – they may help you read me – presentation is key – its part of the game – enjoy yourself – remember when debate used to be fun – I miss that – a lot – and everyone debates better when they are having a good time – so hopefully you are making arguments you enjoy making. 59 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Eber, Michael Debate Dreams I like debates about smart arguments at the expense of stale strategies, bad cards, cheap shots, and hypertechnical minutiae. I love when teams turn the case, use the other team’s evidence against them, and use their intellectual command of the arguments to ISOLATE and zoom in on the fundamental weaknesses of their opponent’s arguments. Its Cliché, But… I have opinions on practically everything with debate. No, they are not an absolute guide to how I judge. I dislike people who are so ideological that they fail to ever consider the validity of the opposition. Isn’t the beauty of debate our openness to even those arguments with which we disagree? So do your thing well and I’ll work hard to be fair. Bad Evidence is Overused My standards for what counts for good evidence are very high. Compensating for bad cards by reading more of them is counterproductive. Please don’t imagine that your evidence does the debating for you. You always need to do work explaining, applying, comparing, and assessing what your evidence says. Please don’t just read cards. Uniqueness Is Overrated I don’t care very much that the status quo sucks if your strategy for dealing with it fails. Proving the existence of a harm is easy…finding a way to solve it is trickier. “Try or die” is a stupid way to conceptualize debates. If your plan is more likely to worsen the risk of impending nuclear war than to help the situation, you should lose. And the claim that nothing could make the situation worse is pretty weak. Similarly, I don’t think that disad uniqueness arguments are nearly as black or white as they get debated. The direction of the LINK will be decisive, not whether the AFTA is 60/40 going to pass or 60/40 going to fail. Topicality, Yes. Ground, Not Necessarily. I generally think that Affs should have integrity to the topic wording, whether you politically like it or not. This topic allows for so many different kinds of affirmatives that there is plenty of space for you to find something that doesn’t horrify you to defend. Topicality is firstly about what the words mean, not just about ground. If you don’t have a grammatical, non-arbitrary, counterinterpretation then the neg should win even if there is no ground loss. The Alternative Debate Matters Most I increasingly find that the affirmatives struggle to beat critiques when their strategy is just no link and perm. Most critiques link. Get over it and impact turn the neg alternative. It is probably so sweeping and ridiculous that you can generate tons of offense anyways. Critiques that magically solve the whole case are a winner if the aff cannot isolate why the alternative fails to achieve its own goals (Solvency matters most. See U overrated, above). I think that the negative needs to prove why the alternative solves back the specific link arguments that were read. Otherwise, those particular links are not really “net benefits” for them because neither team’s framework remedies the problems that were isolated. The Disad is a Circuit Internal Links matter. If you are missing some, your big impact card might not be enough to save you. Same goes for the case. One really good takeout can zap the risk of the Aff advantage too. Khalizad is not an impact card for “soft power.” The second rule of the 1AR is to answer the arguments why the disad turns the case. (The first rule of the 1AR is not to drop the case, or the disad for that matter.) 60 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet No, Its Not a Voter. Seriously. Final Deep Thoughts: The punishment rarely fits the crime. Don’t be mad when your cheap shot doesn’t pay off. No, your problem was that you had no answers to the counterplan and that it solved your whole case, not that it was dispositional. (Although why doesn’t the negative ever have the courage to defend the CP unconditionally?) Stop using blank-SPEC as a crutch, and please make some real arguments. I have heard your theory block for the last 12 years…maybe each team can just turn in their boring-ass blocks and I will decide whose script is better. Yes, the affirmative does, in fact, get to speak first and last. Don’t you feel dirty saying that “X justifies our sever perms” or even worse, “multiple perms are a voter” or even worse “Perm=Voter”? Oh sweet PIC, I miss you. 61 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Ellis, Andy Towson university Judge Philosophy: I have for the most part given up on trying to structure debates into some vision I have of how a debate should be. So my basic philosophy is that I will allow the 4 debaters to shape and determine the debate as they would like. *Note in this regard*-If both teams agree to allow a judge other than myself to judge the debate then I will comply, *Regardless of the silly and baseless impositions of the tab room, in fact stupid tab room administrators are more likely to convince me this is a good idea than if they would just stay quiet.* ** That all being said there are some things I like and some things I don’t. 5 of each should suffice. 5. I like it when there is a purpose to your debating, I think the resources that we use are hugely valuable and I think there are some responsibilities that come along with getting access to those resources, your purpose doesn’t have to agree with my political ideologies. 4. I like well explained and developed arguments that don’t expect me to take “extend the Dillon” as a sufficient 2nr argument 3. I like impact and link analysis. 2. I like cards to be used in the debate not just read. 1. I like being able to flow the debate if you want me to (easier said then done im not that great on the minutia of some ans or the speed of others.) 5. I don’t like exclusionary debate practices. 4. I don’t like reading more than two or three cards per team after the debate. 3. I don’t like theory debates that don’t give me pen time yet expect me to vote on them when they are dropped. 2. I don’t like the simplistic version of the fiat is illusory assumption, you need to compare the effects of the discourse you are criticizing vs the benefits it accrues. 1. I don’t like it when people have questions about a judging philosophy and don’t attempt to clarify. I wont bite or any thing. I’m nice. *Conclusion:* Many of you will doubt that I can shed my previous judging philosophies, and that may be an indication of what I do like, but I will make my best effort to evaluate the debates that I am presented with by the debaters…Thanks 62 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Ellsworth, Seth "If you're ever in doubt, throw a pepper in the air. If it fails to come down, you have gone mad, so don't trust in anything." I am open to any type of debate. If you want to go critical I am down with that, but I also like a good politics debate. I don't really have a preference. Impact turns are fun. Important in every debate: It seems like the current trend is to ignore the other teams arguments in the last two rebuttals. This trend has to stop. Everybody needs to be comparing and weighing the other teams arguments, but this is especially important in the last two rebuttals. Impact comparison, timeframe, magnitude, probability of both your AND the other teams impacts are the easiest way to win the round. This includes both critical and theory debates. For most of my career, I was a straight up debater. That changed at the very end. I didn't have an epiphany, I just got tired of carrying 5 tubs. Lots of people read criticisms in front of me. Here is what you need. LINKS ARE IMPORTANT. You need to be able to explain your impacts in the context of the aff or else you are just reading FYIs about critical theory. Answering ks. Specific answers get you at least an extra half points each. I am not a big fan of framework debates because most of the time they end up being useless to the way you answer the k anyway. The areas of critical theory that I am most familiar with in order are Marxism, Existentialism, and Lacan. Anything else you are taking your chances with. T debates: I used to hate T. Then I had a revelation. I hate bad topicality debates. I think in round abuse is very important to winning a T debate. If you have 4 disads that link, I probalby am not going to be persuaded by a ground loss argument. In any case, if you are going to go for a big T position, the 2nr should probably be just T. Counterplans: I like them. They should be competitive with the aff. Disads: I like them. They should outweigh the aff, or you should have a counterplan that doesn't link. "I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself, as being the end, because what does the end feel like? It's like trying to extrapolate the end of the universe. If the universe is indeed infinite, then what does that mean? How far is all the way and then if it stops what's stopping it and what's behind what's stopping it? So "What is the end?" is my question to you." If both teams consent to an outside the community adjudicater, and one is found, i will adjust my ballot accordingly. 63 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Evans, Kirk The most important thing to know about the way I judge debates is that I tend to look at things globally. By this, I mean that I tend to let the larger picture determine how I read the line-by-line rather than vice versa. This factor of course makes story-telling in the last rebuttal very important, as does impact calculus. Debaters should be making arguments about how I should weigh the round rather than just focusing on winning a bunch of arguments and hoping that I think the arguments they win are important. Because of this way of judging, I often decide quickly without reading that many cards, although I will read them if I think it’s necessary. A second thing to know is that I’m a very strict enforcer of the “argument=claim + warrant” school of thought. In particular, I think the warrant must match up with the claim in a way that makes sense to me. For example, “PICs are a voting issue because they destroy education by encouraging generics” is NOT an argument. You’ve only provided a warrant for rejecting the CP, not to vote aff. As you might guess, I’m not a fan of cheap shots: if you want me to vote on theory there needs to be a substantial time investment in the last rebuttal. Thirdly, I really dislike unclarity (even on cards). Since all the rounds will be paneled I won’t be yelling out clear, but if I don’t understand an argument I have no hesitation about disregarding it. In some previous philosophies I wrote a bunch of stuff to try to explain my predispositions in regards to particular arguments, but this year I decided not to since it would be too much an imposition of myself onto the debate. Additionally, I find my mind continually changing over a wide variety of issues. Besides, nine times out of ten, I think debaters will do best in front of me if they debate the way they feel most comfortable rather than performing strategic gymnastics just in order to try to accommodate me. Finally, have fun and do something interesting and/or gutsy—if I’m educated or entertained I’ll do more work for you. 64 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Feldman, Jonah You should go for whatever it is your winning in front of me. Kritiks, T, Disads, I don't really care, if your winning it than you should go for it. The one warning I should give is that I'm not great for crappy theory debates. This mostly includes PIC's bad, ASPEC, Severance Perms = voters, etc.. This is not to say that I wouldn't vote for these arguments, but I do set the bar higher. Spending a lot of time answering "reject the arg not the team" would be a good idea. I will definetely vote on good theory arguments that you win like Private actor fiat, a good T arg, a good framework debate, etc. For Kritik debates on either the aff or the neg framework questions are really important for me. You should discuss your view of what debate should be, what the role of the judge/ballot is, and how this impacts the arguments in the debate. Evidence quality is pretty important to me. However, I will default to the better debating in most instances but if it's a huge throwdown than you can pretty much guarantee that I'm reading a bunch of cards. In terms of topic knowledge I know the most about Tradeable Permits. I'm pretty familiar with the other sections of the topic but it couldn't hurt to explain some of the more intricate details of those debates. 65 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Fitzmier, Dan I’ve found that over the past several years I’ve changed the way that I judge. I’ve been told by others that this is the case as well. I used to make my decisions almost entirely based on a combination of a taking a ‘relative risk’ oriented approach to argument evaluation and an ‘exclusively flow oriented approach to truthfulness.’ This is not to say that I have now excluded such considerations from my approach to judgment. In fact, I find myself making many decision along such lines. However, I have been disabused of the notion that there is ‘always some risk’ of an argument. I have assigned zero risk to disadvantages and case arguments on a number of occasions in which the debating and evidence pointed towards such a conclusion. I have also been pushed away from what I just called the ‘exclusively flow oriented approach to truthfulness.’ This does NOT mean that I will ignore dropped arguments. I usually give an un-refuted argument more weight than a refuted argument. But I used to almost exclusively regard a ‘dropped’ argument as a trump, so to speak, with which to evaluate all other arguments. I now find myself more willing to compare a ‘dropped’ argument to the core claims which refute it. Let me highlight here that I said ‘the core claims which refute it.’ What I mean by this is that I no longer think that an argument has to have its responding argument ‘next to it’ in order to count as ‘refuted.’ I now think that refutation has more to do with conceptual clash and my own judgment of persuasiveness than with my flow. This could be because my flow has deteriorated in my dotage. It also could be due to a widespread collapse of technical proficiency. Maybe I’ve just started to get over my ego involvement and can now admit that my flow does not represent a perfect transcript of the debate (although let me assure you that I really am very clever). Anywho, let me go back to something that I said at the outset which is that I still often do find myself making decisions which turn on a ‘dropped’ argument or a ‘relative risk’ oriented approach. When I do this, its almost always because one side in the debate has made a strong case that I ought to do so. This provides a nice point of transition into the last important thing that I wanted to say. I often find myself making my decision by virtue of the way that ‘the framework for evaluation’ has been debated or perhaps has not been debated. I encourage you to spend a great deal of time thinking about the way that you want to position my perspective on how the debate ought to be evaluated. There are simply too many different approaches that have cropped up in the past few years for me (and I suspect many of us judges) to pledge my allegiance, as it were, to any one or number of them. I try to take my evaluative bearings from the way that the debate transpired. A parallel point is that I find it to be frustrating when you forgo the opportunity to engage in such a debate. In such a situation I will usually try to feel out a sense for the way that your arguments operate, which is to say: how they lend themselves toward evaluation. If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, that THEY have finally gotten to me, or that something really quite strange is afoot in Evanston, I encourage you to give me the old strikerooo; of course, drunken rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more dignified anonymity of your strike. In all seriousness, please enjoy your NDT 2004!!, um Fall 2K4. 66 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Forslund, Eric Third Year Out (50 + rounds last year) I guess that I would say that I am a lot different judge now than I thought I would be when I was debating. Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times this year, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats: I don’t read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too – explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a “non-traditional” affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations. 3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative. In general, I love a good politics debate and specific counterplans and case arguments are always good strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well (oil, natural gas, etc). As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives at this point in the year then I would have been at the beginning of the year. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate. One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country this year, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me. Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best 67 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet not to be assholes – to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to – those are: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off. 68 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Foy, John Regis Debate is a game. I don’t care what you say or how you say it really. A few caveats: 1.) I always flow. Even if you tell me not to, otherwise I forget stuff or space out. 2.) I vote on cheap shot procedural stuff, in fact I like to. 3.) Don’t assume my politics are your politics. I don’t probably care about the same political agenda as you do. I don’t think capitalism is evil; I can be persuaded that biopower is not an impact; I support the war in Iraq. I could go on and on. In short, if your argument depends on me feeling you, then you might be hosed. 4.) I don’t hate performance any more. My last publically available philosophy said I did. However, I prefer performances (or projects or positions or whatever) that involve me analytically and are smart and funny rather than those that are based on some overt political project. 5.) I like shit that’s funny. I also enjoy haterism. Employing humorous haterism against opponents who are not hapless/young/likely to cry is highly encouraged. In general funny=good. At least try 6.) I really dislike language kritiks. If you find yourself reading “language creates reality” cards in front of me, you may be boned. 7.) I like good procedural debates and will vote on them. I’m not really predisposed on the question of whether the resolution has some inherent meaning or if it must be defended. This means that teams going for framework or procedural arguments against crzy shit cannot simply do it from within the framework of a topic, they have to answer offense and defense about why not having/reinterpreting the topic are good. 8.) If you’re housing a team, I mean just woodshedding them, stand up, extend what you’re winning, explain why it wins and sit down. No need to use an entire block to extend five dropped disads and a counterplan. I don’t punish 1nrs who don’t give a speech because the 2NC extension was sufficient to win the round due to the overwhelming incompetence of the other team. 9.) My flow is not what it used to be. Please (especially if you happen to debate for Emory and forgot to fill out your prefs or something) slow down on tags and cites a little so they are differentiated from cards. This prevents me from wondering whether I missed a card every time your evidence has a year in it. Also, slow down some on theory debates. If you read your blocks like cards then I’ll probably have some illegible and incomplete shit on my flow. 10.) My point base has come up in the last two years and is now about the same as the rest of the community’s. 11.) I read as little evidence as I possibly can after rounds and make relatively quick decisions. Am I just lazy? Maybe. If you have questions ask them. 69 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Frappier, Glen Gonzaga CRITICAL ARGS I prefer to listen to traditional policy debates. Those normally include a plan, a competitive counterplan, some disads, and a case debate. Note...those are the types of debate i prefer to hear...however...i'm willing to listen to anything and i'll vote for a critique or non traditional argument or even a video game as easy as surely as I’ll vote for a counterplan and a net benefit. A few things about me and Ks: I don’t just take it for granted that the plan doesn’t really pass; you still gotta win a link; the affirmative advantages don’t go away because you read a K (although they might if you argue that); i don’t know why the negative needs a text to the alternative...or even why they necessarily need an alternative (a drastic departure from my earlier thinking...based on discussions with those who are persuasive on this issue). Don’t spend 5 1/2 winning your link and only :30 trying to extend an impact. One last thing, don’t assume i've read any of the authors you're reading. The fact that there is “nothing outside the sovereign” might not mean anything to me, although it might seem absolutely obvious to you. EVIDENCE -Extend your evidence by author and argument. I wont do this for you. If you say "extend all our solvency evidence" or "extend our Smith evidence" (of which you have 30 cards from in the debate), you've basically failed the simple task of extending evidence. Quality of evidence beats quantity of evidence. If your best card can’t get the job done...then its a certainty that your other 10 pieces of mediocre evidence wont either. I'd rather you spend your valuable time selling me of why I should vote on your good evidence. The most important part of the debate for me is the explanation given by the final rebuttals. Evidence comparisons-If you fail to compare the quality of link evidence then I’ll do it for you…if you fail to compare impacts then I’ll do it for you… if you fail to compare source qualifications then I’ll do itfor you if it becomes necessary. In some instances, comparison of evidence source qualifications can be valuable, and in my opinion is an underutilized way of attacking certain arguments. COUNTERPLANS: CP theory debates: Dont think for a moment that when you spew out 35 answers on conditionality bad in 15 seconds too many judges will be able to flow it all. The comprehensibility seems to be one of the most reiterated complaints i've heard from judges around the country. Judges enjoy good theory debates...but blippy theory debates with little explanation are bad. Dont expect to win if I cant understand you. I generally err neg on theory, and I can’t remember the last time I voted on conditionality or pics bad. Not that I won’t, but I have predispositions concerning theory args (I think most CPs are legit) and the affirmative will have to work hard to overcome those. PRESENTATION: Make it pleasant for me. Fast rates are fine...but don’t try to speak faster than you’re capable of, it’ll only upset me off and make me lower your points. Consistent repetition gets you nowhere. If I can hear you because of volume or incomprehensibility i'll let you know by saying "louder" or "clear". You get 2 warnings. After that I just wont flow what I cant cant understand. Please don’t get offensive or rude. TOPICALITY: It’s a voter. To me topicality is simply about the value of competing interpretations. If the negative wins that their interpretation is better and the affirmative ain’t that…then affirmative loses. If your affirmative is not in the resolution then you probably don’t want me in the back of the room. I still haven’t figured out why the negative shouldn’t deserve predictable ground. I find i'm rarely persuaded that there has to be "in round" abuse to vote against a non topical. See above regarding competing interpretations. As an aside, I generally think its good to have a plan, or at least defend the portion of the resolution your advocating. POINTS: Heres a quick attempt at explaining how I assign points (I lifted some ideas from JP Lacy). 30 Unattainable. Its been over 6 years since I gave a 30 and that was only cause I was an idiot first year critic who made a bet concerning what points I’d give someone . I judge some of the best debaters in the nation each year and i've yet to see the perfect speech. 29.5 Virtually unattainable. Usually give out 3-5 of these per year. An incredible speech with virtually no flaws. 29 An incredible speech. Your presentation was amazing…your arguments were intelligent and well. researched….your execution was brilliant…I feel smarter for having heard you. Very little room for improvement. 28.5 A Great Speaker. Great arguments. Great execution. Great presentation. Certainly some flaws…but overall fantastic speech. 70 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 28 Above average. You did most things right, but there are some things to work on. Overall you should feel very good that you got a these points from me. 27.5 Slightly above average. You got the job done…but nothing really stood out. If I cant understand half of what comes out of your mouth, or your arguments are extremely bad you probably wont attain this. 27 Average. You did o.k. Lots of room to improve. You should probably consider your rebuttal a great candidate for a redo. Reserved for debaters I cant understand because they are incomprehensible. 26.5 Not good at all. Mistakes were made on all fronts. 26 If you won the round its only cause a) your opponents are worse than you b) you stumbled blindly into a victory or c) you’ve got a partner that carries you like a sack of potatoes. 25.5 and Below: I feel like you’ve wasted everyones time. I am less of a person for having heard you debate. Well below 25 is reserved for those who are incredibly offensive, violent, or those who insist on offensive language even when its pointed out to them. 71 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Galloway, Ryan W. Samford University 11th year Coaching 20 Rounds on China Opening Comments: Despite some strong theoretical dispositions, I frequently find myself in rounds where I vote against them. Thus, the best advice is to do what you want in front of me. In the past, I have voted for or against just about everything run in the current activity. When in doubt, be clear, explain your argument, make it specific, and narrow the debate down to the core issues. The number one rule I follow is one I hope Scott Harris still has in his judging philosophy: because I think debaters work hard to be here, I will work hard for you. Framework Stuff: OK, so last year I went ballistic on this issue and found myself almost instantly in debates where I voted the opposite of what I said. To give fair warning, however: at the end of the day, if the arguments are fully fleshed out between teams of equal caliber, the argument that the affirmative should have to defend the topic is better than the argument that the benefits of their project outweigh Topicality. And, to answer Louisville’s question: I’m amenable to finding a judge if both sides agree. Topicality: Voted on it zero times last year, have already voted negative twice on it this year. The AFF. team should really have a defense as to why they are both economic and diplomatic pressure. At the same time, I find reasonability to frequently be compelling. I give the AFF. leeway on cheap shots, especially if they cross-apply “worldview” answers to it (reasonability, no abuse, cross-x, etc.) The new T violation off of a 2ac answer is a poor innovation: the new violation is likely too underdeveloped to be useful. I’m “old school:” I really think the NEG. is better off going for one or two violations for the entire 2nr if they want to win on T. Counterplans: Rarely has dispo/conditionality risen to the level of a voting issue. I wish more teams would ditch the theory blocks (both sides) and debate the substance. Sometimes you have no choice but to go for theory, but the record is not kind to either the NEG. theory cheap shot against the perm or the AFF. PIC’s Bad/Dispo Bad genre. We have too many theory debates. Please debate the substance. Kritiks: I used to be quite the Negative hack, but AFF’s have gotten better at answering K’s. The more abstract the K, the harder it is for me to judge (and the less your likelihood of success). Make the K specific to the AFF. representations/methodology/etc. Tell me in plain English why the K means the AFF. doesn’t solve/makes things worse. Generally not a big fan of the “theory hits” versus K’s, but I must admit that AFF. choice is beginning to make some sense to me. If you’re AFF. go for reasons why your AFF. is still a good idea/perms/alt fails, and not the various “you ran a K you lose” arguments (no text to alt, etc.) Style: I enjoy clear, fast, comprehensible debates. I think defense is underrated, and I will vote on no risk of an argument. I think uniqueness is overrated and frequently find myself defaulting to the link in close uniqueness debates. I think extremist impacts are overrated and frequently find myself voting on probability. Explain your arguments well, make sure your evidence backs up your argument, and don’t be afraid to say “even if our evidence is only OK on this issue, we still win because of _______.” Please read the other teams cards and don’t just play the evidence shuffle game. You can go a long way in front of me making smart, basic analytics against the other team’s evidence. I’ve judged a lot of fun, good, close debates this year. Be yourself in front of me. Don’t try to be funny if you’re not, and stick to your style of debating. I will take a while to decide, and I read a good chunk of cards. At the same time, I frequently find myself dismissing large parts of what I read in evidence saying “not in the debate.” Good luck, enjoy yourself, and make some friends while you do this. My closest friends are almost all debaters. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. 72 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Garen, Adam Dartmouth To maximize their chances of winning my ballot and earning good speaker points, debaters should (1) offer a detailed and specific analysis of the case at hand instead of relying solely on vague and sweeping generalizations and (2) resolve the arguments in the debate instead of focusing solely on argument construction and refutation. Brief overviews that address meta-issues and make arguments that don't fit elsewhere on the flow can help resolve issues in the debate, but long overviews tend to confuse things. A strong overview frames an issue: "They've conceded x and y; therefore, we only need to win z." A weak overview merely summarizes arguments that belong elsewhere on the flow: "Here are all of our links, and here are all of our impacts." A strong overview takes stock of the arguments a team will probably win and the arguments that team will probably lose: "Even if they win x, we still win because of y." A weak overview presumes that one team will somehow win all of the arguments in the debate: "We'll win x, y, and z; therefore, we'll win the debate." I vote on a variety of arguments and rarely reject things said by debaters out of hand. That said, I will not vote on something that makes no sense to me simply because the debaters have said it. Debaters have the responsibility to respond to their opponents' arguments, but not everything said by a debater counts as an argument. For example, simply uttering the phrase "voting issue" does not turn an issue into an issue that I vote on. (Fair warning: debaters need to preempt the claim that refusing to consider the abusive argument in question constitutes a viable remedy in order to establish that a theory argument is in fact a voting issue.) The idea that judges should establish provisional rules for debate holds sway with me. A good offensive theory argument consists of four components: 1) A statement of the effect that the other team's theoretical position would have on debate. 2) An explanation of why the other team's theoretical position would have that affect on debate. 3) A reason why that affect would harm debate as an activity. 4) A comparative evaluation between that harm and the harm(s) caused by your own theoretical position. Debates about how the debate community should interpret and respond to the topic transcend particular debate rounds. Debate does not have a single purpose, and debaters can therefore use a variety of values to support the vision of the debate community they think I should promote with my ballot. As a default stance, I view the possibility of in-depth preparation and argumentation as the strongest values the debate community should uphold. In resolving debates, I default to the role of an individual taking a position about what the United States Federal Government should do. This means that I do not believe that I am the United States Federal Government, but I do think that the question of what the United States Federal Government should do often has relevance in debates. I have played a number of other roles when judging debates. Debaters should make arguments about what they think I can and should do with my ballot. I would rather play the role of an active participant in the process of debate whose potentiality is not exhausted by evaluating what the debaters have done and handing out a "W" and an "L". I err negative on most aspects of counterplan theory. The affirmative's ability to choose the focus of the debate necessitates substantial argumentative flexibility for the negative. The exception to this rule is a counterplan that contradicts another argument in the debate (e.g., a counterplan that links more to a disadvantage than the plan does). Debaters need not always read cards to support their arguments. I will not necessarily give more weight to an argument made by an "expert" than I will to an argument made by a debater. Still, reading cards often helps to establish an argument. For example, a card from the President Bush will go a long way towards demonstrating President Bush's view on a subject. Debaters should have full source citations available for all the cards they read. Full source citations include page numbers for cards from books, journals, magazines, etc., and full URLs for cards from the web. If a debater alters a card, he or she should make note of that alteration immediately. For example, if a debater reads only a portion of a card, that debater should mark the card during his or her speech, not after the speech or after the debate. 73 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet I do not enjoy judging rude debaters who attempt to forcefully establish a dominant position within a debate round. I do enjoy judging debaters who make me laugh. One topic-specific note: Many of the core link questions for arguments on this topic (scarcity, climate, economy, etc.) involve questions of degree. Assessing the relative magnitude of links and link turns is therefore desirable. Intensifiers (large, substantial, important, etc.) help. Numbers and on-balance assessments really help. Evidence without any of the above will get little weight (see burden of proof above). 74 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Garen, Geoff Dartmouth To me, a ‘judging philosophy’ is a contradiction in terms, since judging means privileging your arguments over my philosophies. That said, I understand the utility these things hold. So, below is a list of my default thoughts on debate, followed by a list of my default thoughts on certain arguments. Remember that my defaults are easily overridden by warranted argument. Bio: In high school, I went for the politics DA. In college, I went for kritiks. Default thoughts on debate: 1. An argument is a claim and a warrant. A claim without a warrant is worth zero. (Therefore, there is such a thing as zero risk. To say otherwise is to claim that there is zero risk that there is such a thing as zero risk, which is absurd.) A one-sentence card is a warrant (“a qualified author says so”), but not a very good one. A strongly warranted analytical argument can beat a card. 2. The burden of rejoinder does not exist until the burden of proof has been met. In other words, you don’t have to answer an argument until it has a claim and a warrant. Most common application: “They have no answer to our alternative” isn’t persuasive if I have no idea what your alternative is or why it’s good. Second-most common application: the words "voting issue" are not necessarily a voting issue, even if they're initially dropped. 3. The Link. The quality of your “political capital is finite” evidence is irrelevant if you can’t explain why the plan would require political capital expenditure in the first place. The quality of your “prolif discourse bad” evidence is irrelevant if you can’t prove the aff has employed the style of prolif discourse your evidence describes. 4. Arguments win easy debates; argument comparisons win tough debates. Explain the warrants in your evidence; tell me why you warrants are better than theirs; tell me why your impacts are more important that theirs. To the greatest extent possible, I will rely on your explanation instead of my own. 5. Flowing. I like it. I think it helps me avoid inserting my own arguments, comparisons, and forgetfulness into debates. You're welcome to ask me not to flow, but please be aware that my resulting decision will probably include more of my own arguments, comparisons, and forgetfulness. Default thoughts on certain arguments: Theory: Specificity is important. For example, some PICs may be bad, but your PIC may still be good. Textual PICs and international fiat are probably OK. Consultation CPs, functional agent CPs (e.g. “normal means is congress; we'll do an executive order), and functional PICs (e.g. “exclude X business from the aff's regulation”) are more difficult. Dispositionality is probably OK. Conditionality is more difficult. Literature is probably a good litmus test. (I do not mean the existence of literature on a certain argument; I mean the centrality of your argument in the literature.) Kritiks: Kritiks and kritik alternatives are probably OK. An alternative may need a text, but defending the value of criticism itself is probably OK, too. Uniqueness does matter for kritiks, but alternatives often take care of it. For teams that like to go for “the aff gets to choose the framework for the debate,” I am yet to hear a persuasive answer to “debating the merits of different frameworks is better than letting one side arbitrarily choose one,” but that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. Topicality: Topicality is probably a debate of competing interpretations of the resolution. A predictable limit is probably more important than ground. Topicality is probably a voting issue. Spec-ification: I don’t like these arguments much, but I understand their utility. If a team has egregiously unspecified, or egregiously un-answered your spec-ification argument, they’ll probably lose. 75 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Gerber, Matt Matt Gerber, Ph.D. Co-Director of Debate Baylor University 20+ Rounds Helpful Information: I will flow. I will be fair. I will probably read some cards after the debate. If there is something that you really want me to take a look at, be sure and reference it clearly in the 2NR/2AR. If you are being unclear, I will say something. Please don't disregard me if I say "clearer". Isn't it in your best interest that I get everything you say? I would like to understand the text of the evidence that is being read. Many debaters read taglines clearly and then slur the evidence. I don’t enjoy that very much. I reward debaters who are funny. I enjoy debates where the participants are having fun. Debate should be at least kinda fun. Topicality: I like a good T debate. I like this topic because there are good T debates. I like T debates that center around the comparison of competing interpretations/visions of the topic. Which vision of the topic is more equitable? Debatable? I have seen good T debates about the nature of how the word “requiring” functions in the topic. I have seen good T debates about how the words “total” and “fossil fuels” function in the topic. I have seen good T debates about what the word “resolved” means. I don’t like it when 2ACs spew out 25 answers to T at the speed of light; that usually hurts your cause. Theory Issues: I try to be open-minded. I try to keep a good flow on the theory stuff, although often it is difficult to do so because debaters blaze through their Dispo Bad blocks at the speed of light. Slow down just a notch on the theory stuff. Conditionality, Dispositionality, Intrinsicness, Counter-Warrants, Hasty Generalizations, Justification, I’ll listen to all of it. I try to be open minded about these issues and let the debaters figure this stuff out in the round. If you want the SQ as an option, be prepared to defend why that is OK. If you want to run 5 CP's (like Oie in practice debates) you should also be ready to defend accompanying theoretical objections. Again, I'll try to be “tabula rosa” on these issues. The same advice is true on “Framework” issues. You should be able to defend what framework your arguments operate in. How should I view the debate? Through what “paradigm”? What is the nature and function of “fiat” in the debate? How does the plan function? How does my ballot function? I am open to very different interpretations here, but you have to clear these things up in the debate. Critical Arguments: I don't have any bias against these types of arguments. If your argument is a criticism of the language of the other team, be sure and explain the link and your "voting implications" accordingly. I often find the most problematic aspects of these debates to be the question of how my ballot functions at the end of the debate. Is my ballot a statement to the community? Is personal resistance enough of a reason to vote negative? How are permutations evaluated? Please try and clear this stuff up so I'm clear as to what I should do at the end of the debate. Explain your links. Use the other teams arguments, language, and evidence to fuel your criticism. I like specific Kritiks more than generic Kritiks. Deep Ecology, on this topic, makes some sense to me. A Kritik of the Gregorian Calendar does not. If you have specific questions, please just ask. Congratulations on qualifying for the NDT, and good luck. 76 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Gonzalez, Joshua A brief and decidedly incomplete rundown of stuff follows. If you have specific questions, ask me, I am sufficiently friendly. 1. Topicality: eh. It’s a voter. All things being equal, I probably lean a little aff here. Negs would be best served by going for something else, but if T’s what you got, then it’s what you got. I may be a little more neg leaning that usual this year, but that’s mostly because I think a lot of people have been getting away with a ton of shady stuff. Two specific warnings: the following affs seem dangerously close to massively non-topical – 1. “Ban the use of fossil fuels in obscure activity X.” 2. “We read the whole resolution as our plan text, and then defend some K aff that has nothing to do with it.” I am pretty skeptical of these affs, although by no means fully convinced. One seems too small to be topical, the other seems whole rez. One final note – if you read a plan, I am likely to force you to defend it. 2. Specification – I really detest these debates, not because I believe that there is one right answer, but because there are so many better things to talk about in a debate round. I’ll vote on it, but I generally find most negative interpretations to be exceedingly self serving. However, this merely means that they ought to be fairly easy for the aff to answer, not that I’ll dismiss the neg out of hand. 3. Theory: again, not the president of the fan club, but I pretty much follow the line by line. I just don’t find the majority of theory arguments a particularly compelling reason to award a ballot. “Reject the argument, not the team” generally carries a large amount of weight. For me to drift away from that, you’ll need to demonstrate that the time skew/strategy skew/whatever from which you suffer is: 1) An inevitable result of the other team’s argument, and that 2) The round becomes presumptively unfair as a result. If I have any biases, it’s that conditionality is slightly shady, but whatever, my point is that it’s all context dependent. A final note about theory/T/spec/etc. – at the end of the day, I’m only really able to vote on what I flow, and I miss a lot more arguments on these sorts of debates than in others – my dissatisfaction with these sorts of rounds may well be that I never feel really great about the decision I make precisely because I’m far more prone to miss an argument or two. If you need/want to go for this stuff, it’s very much in your interest to slow down a bit, so that I can get as much of what you say as possible. 4. Kritiks: don’t have an opinion one way or the other that’s strong enough to really matter to your debating. If it’s your thing, fine. If it’s not your thing, that’s fine, too. I don’t really read that much of the cutting-edge literature anymore, so it’s worth the effort to slow down and explain things a bit. 5. Other K-like Stuff (a.k.a., “the project”, etc.): I promise you that I will approach every debate with as open a mind as possible, but this is one of those places where my pre-dispositions will probably start to creep in quickly. I think that there are some very concrete and very valuable pedagogical benefits associated with the way that debate is currently conducted. That is not to suggest that there isn’t something better out there, but that I probably will apply a fairly high standard that you prove that whatever departures you suggest will be clearly better. That’s not to 77 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet say that I’ll dismiss your arguments out of hand, just that it’s most likely an uphill struggle. If that’s a struggle in which you’re willing to engage, I’m willing to listen. Put another way, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your worldview is pedagogically net-beneficial to traditional policy debate. 6. Offense/Defense – is there such a thing as “zero risk?” No. Is there such a thing as “not enough risk to be meaningful in my decision?” Yes. Are “offensive” arguments likely to get a lot more traction than “defensive” arguments? Yes. Translation: sure, I vote on defense-only. I just don’t do it very often. 7. Line-by-line vs. truth-seeking, or whatever you want to call it: patently dumb arguments don’t get smart because they get dropped. On the other hand, I’m not going to infer arguments from your evidence that are not explicitly made in the debate, i.e., the mere extension of a piece of evidence to answer an argument isn’t really an answer at all. This has been a problem is a round or two, so I’ll offer an example to make it real clear. They say: “the moon is made of cheese.” You saying “this is answered by our Armstrong evidence” is bad; saying “no, it’s made of rock, that’s our Armstrong evidence” is good. That’s all I could think of right now. Once again, please ask me any question you might have and I will be happy to answer them. 78 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Gorelick, Nate People, people, please... I have no definite predispositions about the type of arguments that you run in any debate. But understand that some issues may be less familiar to me (the latest politics scenarios, etc.), so more explanation than you are used to might be necessary. This does not mean that I have a higher threshold for voting on these argumments. On the contrary, I ALWAYS prefer a good, specific debate to a bunch of intelligible-yet-totally-generic crap. This goes for disads, counterplans, case turns, critiques... everything. Disads and counterplans are very exciting to me, even though I have been typecast as a critique judge. I enjoy a good, specific counterplan far more than a generic critique debate. This does not mean that your socialism argument must have a plan text. However, I may be less familiar with some of the policy-side arguments on the topic, which only means that you can run whatever you want but you may need to dedicate some time to the basics of your positions. Critiques get way too generic, and I can understand this under certain circumstances, but if you cannot make your critique very specific to some aspect of the affirmative... you could be in a lot of trouble. You don't necessarily need cards, but link diversity is important. I also suggest remembering your impacts by the 2NR, and being able to explain your alternative in relation to the plan throughout the debate. That is, if you even have an alternative, and I do not think that you necessarily need one. That is a strategic decision for you to make, not a prerequisite for critique structure. Case debate: you have got to get deep into your arguments, make some strategic decisions, and blow up a couple of good arguments into round-winning possibilities. Shallow case debates are annoying. Theory is constructed by the debaters in the debate. You have got to remember to impact your arguments with more than "VI 4 = + ed, judge." Style: it helps to have some. Just try to remember that you are all very, very boring people in debate rounds, and that just about everybody likes to be entertained, so try to move your arguments beyond their core substance by being a strong communicator. I like to be convinced of an argument by devices beyond the flow. This is your round, not mine. I will not judge based upon whether you make the arguments that I would have made. Everything is up for grabs. These are all just tips so that you will have some idea of the kind of rounds that I like to watch. Any questions, just ask. 79 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Gottbreht, Scotty I was a 2a Topicality I vote on it, even K affs should be T CP Theory Don't read 20 reasons that pics are good, give 4 reasons why this pic in particular is good for education and whatnotfor me, conditionality is a voter if there's some kind of abuse, no other theory args are voters, reject the argument not the team Kritiks Just because I debated kritiks doesn't mean I am a good judge for them-I vote on the technical line-by-line-my biases are actually anti-kritik: if you are running a critical aff, gotta be T; if you are negative, recognize that I was a 2a so I think action and advocacy are good, progressivism good, coalitions and resistance good. Do whatever the hell you want, I will probably be able to follow your arguments 80 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Green, Justin Kansas State University Coaching and Judging 7 years What I like? -Well explained and developed arguments with detail. If you need to throw the kitchen sink along with other arguments of low quality at the other team because that's all you got - then go for it. Be aware: the pure shit spread with little explanation usually results in low points. -Debaters that are funny, treat their opponents with respect, and their opponents arguments in a thorough manner. -Negatives that state clearly in the 1nc the nature of their Advocacies and extremely briefly state in the C-X what they mean by "dispositional, conditional, etc." -Strategically planned cross-exes. -Cross Ex’s where those who ask and answer the questions are the ones scheduled to do so. 1 or 2 questions/answers from your partner – no problem – more… watch the speaker points decline. -Clearly read evidence. I usually DON'T CALL FOR CARDS after debates unless there is a dispute about the meaning of them or I want the cite. I wish not to reconstruct the debate, but truly judge it on what was presented and argued. -Advocacies (Permutations, Plans, and Other competing alternatives) to have a clear text I can comprehend unless the point of your argument is not to have one. -Debaters to do what they do best in front of me. Voting Issues/Theory Because you call it one, does not mean I will vote on it. A voting issue is a reason that a team introduced an argument that profoundly shapes the debate. Illegitimate perms are a reason to throw out the permutation, not a voting issue. I would much rather see an affirmative use an "abusive" counterplan to justify an argument that migh be theoretically suspect (non-intrinsic, sever part of the plan) - than to engage in a series of blippy theory debates. ISPEC, OSPEC, ASPEC, insert SPEC of the week here - I am not likely to vote on unless the affirmative clearly engages in practices during the debate that make debate very difficult to happen. I can be persuaded on pressure specification if the plan just says economic and diplomatic and then gets out of arguments by saying that is not us. I generally err neg on CP theory - be aware. Counterplans that use a lot of theory - World Government, change the spelling - there's a theory debate to be had - no err neg on this grouping. Even if dropped, hidden 2 line voting issues, I am not likely to vote on. Critical Arguments I assume the negative is defending the status quo, unless clearly articulated and defended otherwise. I appreciate theory arguments about what the negative/affirmative should/shouldn't have to defend. My ballot is a tool for what you decide; no bills actually pass in the Congress of D.C. as a result of our debate; "pre-fiat" - please leave this vocabulary at the door. All of these statements beg the question of does your argument provide a reason to reject the affirmative. I do appreciate discussions of the role of the judge so as to determine how to evaluate critical arguments- leave the clichés at the door. Big Case Debates 81 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Where have all my heroes gone? I love em. Interaction I plan on it. My expressions will likely tell you how I feel – look at them. I will interrupt the C-X if you are not answering the questions or asking the same question, or your speech if I don't understand your arguments. 82 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Green, R.J. Wake Forest <Meta Pointifications:> You: So How radical are you? Me: As (non) radical as you want me to be. It’s your game. I’ve enjoyed the various types of debates that I have been fortunate enough to adjudicate. Policy debates, critical debates, performance debates. </Meta Pointifications:> So I've finally judged enough rounds to feel like I can write a somewhat coherent philosophy. Overall, I believe that my role as a judge can be best summed up as "rhetorical critic". Your job as a debater is to place me in a "Hermeneutical Situation" in which I can interpret the round in a way that is pleasing to all involved. Rhetorical critics analyze policy discourse, poetry, music, prose, and (GASP) speeches. That is why I believe that, when the various worlds may clash in a round, the debate of . . . Framework is very important. I need to know how you want me to judge a debate. Yes, I can be persuaded to adopt whatever paradigm you may want me to adopt. I generally believe that your framework cards should assume what the critical authors are arguing. MEANING there needs to be a clash of warrants. Aff choice is for gits. Chances are I will not be persuaded to vote on the framework if that’s a last minute bail out against a specific link to either the case or to the in round rhetoric. Humor: People probably don’t know much about my twisted sense of humor (reference the hilarious sitcom Father Ted). I think some arguments can be answered by a single, poignant joke. Well, maybe not, but you get my drift. Utilize it. Topicality - Yeah, I think you should be able to defend that you are in some shape or form linked to the topic. I will never be convinced that there are “rules” to. I do believe however that whatever creativity you bring to the round should be grounded in the topic. I generally believe that the opposition should be ready to engage in a debate on the topic, as well as with whatever creative thing you may do. Yes, I have voted on Topicality (shock and awe). I tend to think of the resolution in terms of grammar/syntax. Is the aff reasonable? Competing interpretations? What would the case list look like if I approved X or Y interpretation of the resolution? I will also vote on your critique of topicality if you win that debate. Is T Genocidal? Hard to tell. Best way to go here is some sort of language theory, or win an issue of fairness. Maybe you should argue why my jurisdiction should (not?) include X or Y perspective. Critiques - yeah, questioning/defending the assumptions of a plan are important. I think I would answer the "yes/no" question of a plan with bad assumptions a definitive NO. The more specific link to the in round plan/discourse the better. Teams however should be ready to defend against the more generic criticisms. I generally believe that the critique will more than likely link. But what about the impact or an alt. Disads –. Do not read politics unless you absolutely have to do so (aka it’s the only thing you carry, which I may find hard to believe. Politics theory (aka Vote No!) will suffice here. Bizcon makes much sense to me. Counterplans – don’t like them. At all. I particularly don’t like consult. Case debate, disads, and critiques. Flowing: yeah, I flow. Always have. Not that I flow (or do anything) well. Unless, of course, there are arguments as to why I shouldn’t flow. Its a debate round, duh. I think the question should not be about whether I take notes or not, 83 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet but about the ways in which I should use said notes after taking them. If the debaters want me to flow, then I expect the debaters to keep my flow in good shape. Refer to numbers, cites, and maybe even tags. Style. It’s your round, do what you are equipped to do. If you can be creative, go for it. If you try to be creative because you think that’s what I like although you’re not creative at all, it’d be better if you didn’t even try. I’m gravitating towards the ross smith interpretation of speed: clarity is good and should not be sacrificed, you should go as fast as the number of good winnable arguments that you have, and that efficiency is key. Finally, I think that debate is about the big picture, the team that is able to take their of arguments and weave them into a coherent warrant for the ballot usually wins my ballot. I’ve also found myself voting on a dropped argument (never thought Id see that happen, but that’s what the debaters wanted) You can do what you need to do to win the debate, but when you tell me how to evaluate the debate I feel like I am intervening less. Final thought I am probably smarter than you think I am, but I am probably dumber than I think I am. For more philosophical tidbits, check my facebook entry. Be Seeing You 84 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Grove, Jairus I have a few idiosyncrasies I will get out of the way. I rarely call for cards that are not debated or compared to other pieces of evidence. A good explanation of you uniqueness story on Bush will do you a lot more good than a couple of cards from the SacBee tagged more evidence. In general, you will find that I really listen to the debate and will decide rounds on unevidenced claims if they are well explained. I also tend to think this is still an activity premised on communication which means I am often put off by people who are excessively abusive (which is distinct from being passionate) or condescending. Also I think that I keep a good flow, but because the argumentation of the debaters is often more important to me than evidence you would do well not to sacrifice clarity for another throwaway piece of evidence. I am always willing to answer questions before the debate so do not hesitate to ask. Counter-plans- I do not have any particular theoretical leanings with one exception: I am not very likely to vote affirmative on a conditionality debate if there is just one c/p, but if there are multiple conditional advocacies I am much more sympathetic to the affirmative. I think that I have a tendency to privilege affirmative claims about solvency deficits particularly when there is virtually no specific solvency evidence. For instance having evidence that Japan does biotech research does not do much to convince me that Japan would be capable of regulating biotech abroad. This does not mean that I will assign the c/p zero weight it just means you need a big risk of your D/A. Disadvantages- I have not been inducted into the cult of uniqueness. John Paul Lupo said they would never let me in and he is probably right. I am most interested in the link. A good link and issue specific or link specific uniqueness is really all I am interested in, save your general surveys of the general political landscape for someone else. Also, I still think that really good empirical denials and no internal link arguments can devastate disadvantages. As for the political disads in general you better do more than just talk about dems and repubs, politics is more complex than that if you cant get more specific I am unlikely to think there is much probability of your d/a. Critiques- Having gone for these arguments I found that the most important part of the debate is making sure that the judge is aware of how you think things should be evaluated. Why does discourse matter? Why is the ballot important? These are not question I already know the answer to. I also have a tendency to take performative contradiction arguments seriously. I have never understood why it is a voting issue, but it is also difficult for me to hear someone appeal to their political commitment against the techno-strategic discourse when they just finished reading a Japan Disadvantage. If the negative can contradict themselves “discursively” then so can the affirmative and I will vote for the permutation, unless you have a good story as to why you have a link to the actual result of the plan in which case we now have a disadvantage on our hands and it is a totally different debate. (see above) 85 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Guevara, Omar G Director of Forensics & Instructor of Communication Department of Communication Weber State University 11 Tournaments Attended in 2004-2005: Las Vegas Round Robin, Gonzaga, Southern Utah, Pepperdine, Wayne State, USC, Fullerton, Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State, Berkeley, District IX Qualifier, NDT. This year will be my 20th year in academic debate. I debated or coached at Detroit Catholic Central, University of Iowa, Miami of Ohio, Wayne State University and directed programs at Henry Ford Community College, California State University-Bakersfield, and now currently at Weber State University. I care very deeply about the activity and hope that debaters will understand that I will do my best to respect their efforts, listen fairly to arguments, make good faith effort to maintain the integrity of the debate round, render a methodical assessment, and constructively engage in post-round questioning and discussion. That being said, you need to appreciate that I have generated a certain perspective--a system of biases--that I feel comfortable operating within. I can challenge my pre-judgments, predisposition, and biases if debaters can demonstrate a “clear and compelling” case for me to do so. That being said, here are those “predispositions”: 1. “Debate” Theory debates. I consider dispositionality given. I lean towards conditionality when framed in the context of negation theory. I could be persuaded to hypo-test. Under ideal circumstances, advocating c-plan perms is open question for me. I hope all debaters would limit the number of “debate theory” arguments they introduce, and would deliver such arguments at a significantly slower rate. 2. Topicality. Yes. I do expect you to go “all-in” in on T in the 2NR if you expect me to seriously consider voting on it. And going “all in” on T in the 2NR means either more than shadow coverage in the block, or a 1AR meltdown. Make sure to explain how your interpretation is best for fair division of ground, especially if we are deal with dueling definitions. 3. Ethical-Political Objections (I.e. “critiques”). Absolutely. Right now I’m into post anarchism, but I’m also familiar with a reasonably wide range of Marxist and radical ecological thought, and have dabbled in various political identity theorists. I’m not a big fan of the more extreme ends of post-modern thinking: I believe language is quasi-determinate, that at least the contours of meaning can usually be assigned to a signifier, and that the material (e.g., ecolonomics) understandings and explanations are typically undervalued. I consider myself most comfortable with post-modernism when it is informed, and directed, at supporting an ethical-political drift. I don’t really care whether you ask me to join your project, your movement, your resistance, or your revolution…you typically should offer alternative (or, at least make an allusion to one if you are ahead on the "negation" debate). Don’t forget to contextualize the theory in terms of the particular (I.e. the debate round)…take full advantage of all the evidence, language, and performance in order to make your ethical-political objection come alive. Lastly, I will honor any debater’s request to “not flow and just listen,” just make sure to tell me that before you begin speaking. 4. C-Plans + Net Benefits. Absolutely. I still do a reasonable amount of reading on the topic, and enjoy traditional debating. I am fairly conventional in my thinking when asked to evaluate such a debate as a policymaker: Counter plan net benefits +/- solvency vs. Case net benefits +/- solvency. It helps to give a 30 second macro view in the final rebuttal establish explicit criteria by what you believe is a methodical and balanced assessment of aforementioned formula. 5. Did I forget something? Please ask anything you want before the debate. I’ll do what I can to accommodate your concerns. 86 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Guevara, Veronica M. The role of the critic: “My job is just to regulate funkiness” – James Gandolfini I don’t determine what is true or what I believe to be true, only what is argued better in this particular instance. Some general comments that apply across the board: If you make a well-warranted argument of value on your own, you’ll never hear me say “awww...if you only had a card that said that” you, Zizek...same difference. The right analits on a disad can do the job. A corollary to that is that I don’t call for very much evidence...at allll...don’t count on it. You can save the laundry lists of authors. I’m more interested in how a debater uses evidence, than what evidence a debater reads. All the same, if there is a dispute over what a card says, I’ll call for it to settle that. I’m not wed to any particular type of argumentation as long as it happens to make an argument. There will be more on that under performance. Fiat is simply the ability to imagine a world where the plan/counterplan is enacted. Take from that what you will. Topicality: I love to see topicality used strategically, perhaps to arrest link concessions on other portions of the debate. I tend to think that that is the best way to use T and I’m impressed when it’s done effectively. Of course, topicality functions on it’s own. I come from the school of thought that T is a ground issue. That doesn’t mean I haven’t voted on other justifications for the argument, just that I’m disappointed when one team lets the other get away with it. Standards aren’t there for decoration; they’re critical in evaluating the debate, so use them. Disads: You got ‘em, bring ‘em. I prefer deep, developed, intricate debates over a shallow spread. After a certain number of arguments, there’s bound to be a double turn somewhere, but that’s up to you to find. Counterplans: I think they’re quite effective in neutralizing some of the advantages dealt to the affirmative. I lend them a very willing ear. I tend to err in favor of PIC’s and dispositionality, but don’t take my predispositions as an invitation to take theory debates for granted. I will assume a perm is a test of competition unless otherwise instructed and that usually requires some justification. Kritiks: I read the goo as a debater and I read even more of the goo as a grad student. I happen to be fluent in fru fru joo joo bee, that doesn’t mean that you can string a bunch of catch phrases, do a boogey boogey, then sit back in the corner, cross your fingers and have me make an argument out of it. Seriously, I have anunderstanding of critical argumentation but often find myself most interested in questions of praxis in debates. The link seems fairly easy to establish, e.g. “you use the state” but the more complicated question has to deal with the implications of that. It’s funny how the most important part of the debate gets undercovered because debaters get bogged down on the top level. If the K is your deal, go ahead and “Do The [Goo]” just be aware. If you want to make your life infinitely simpler in front of me when engaging in critical argumentation, run a counterplan. You’re totally welcome to forgo that option, but then you have to be prepared to discuss how the argument generates unique (yep, I said it...UNIQUE) offense. Using the kritik as a solvency turn works. Please do not say the words “pre fiat” or “post fiat” in my presence...gives me the hee bee jee bees and makes me make me cringe. Those words mean nothing to me. I can explain further upon request. Performance: Most of the time I find myself at a loss. I don’t see how performativity is any different from the debate I practiced when running my F-16’s affirmative. If you’ve ever seen my blocks, you know they’re a work of art. You’re welcome to explore a plethora of formats, but choosing an innovative format alone does not warrant a ballot, only the arguments made using that format can do that. If you think that performativity gives you superpowers, the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, or create an ultrasonic force field that shields you from having to defend the implications of your advocacy, then it’s unlikely that I’d be a good critic for you. On the other hand, if you’ve got a cogent argument that happens to be articulated using an alternate format, I’m down. 87 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Delivery: Speed coupled with clarity is always cool. A couple of areas where you should be conscientious about “pen time” are at the top of 2AC’s particularly when answering T with a gazillion we meets (that’ll just result in a gazillion w/m’s on my flow) and on theory debates, especially when you begin to engage in the substructure. Referencing arguments along with numbers ensures that I know where you are and that’s usually prettyimportant to my voting for you. Author names are all well and good, but I tend to prioritize flowing the text of the evidence over its cite. If you refer to what a card says rather than who says it, you’ll be assured that I’ll extend the right evidence. Doing both is optimal. I tend to value larger overarching overviews over a lot of line-by-line minutia. Arguments like “my harms evidence makes all of your impacts non-unique” will get you exceedingly farther than extending that fourth or fifth piece of uniqueness evidence that makes the exact same argument as the three above of it. Above all, humor gets you points. If you’re smart on the debate AND you make me laugh while doing it, you’ll be handsomely rewarded. 88 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hall, Michael Liberty Like most judges, my philosophy continues to evolve. 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. In any case, I am willing to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters. Topicality 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 more concerned with 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. That said, I have found myself persuaded by well-developed arguments that depend on the loss of disad ground as their primary reason to reject the affirmative. If you develop compelling reasons why your interpretation better preserves ground, I am probably more willing to vote for you that most judges. Counterplans My default positions for acceptable counterplans are generally liberal. I tend to like creative plan-inclusive counterplans and I tend to think the status quo always remains an option for the negative. 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. Kritikal Args and Performance I am easily persuaded that the affirmative should have a “plan” that they consistently advocate throughout the debate. However, I have no problem with the affirmative or negative using kritikal arguments or non-traditional evidence to demonstrate the (un)desirability of the plan. 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 run a few positions and explain them well than for those who run multiple positions and keep them all. (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. Those who run full-throttle through the final rebuttal risk losing me. (4) I like to read as few cards as possible 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. (6) I've become less bashful about letting debaters know if they are unclear, although on multiple judge panels I limit myself to the nonverbal expression of my angst. 89 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hall, Sherry Harvard Recently, when judging at a high school tournament, one of the debaters asked me about my 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 as debate judge as a "critic of argument" means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is act like an educator grading a class presentation. Collegeiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting like 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 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, and this year, what broad actions are taken to implement the treaty. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor or implementation process, 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. No one ever seems to explicitly argue that their arguments are “conditional” in front of me. That is probably a good thing. 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 preferences for how debaters should conduct themselves during rounds. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents. 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 90 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 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. 91 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hamrick, Kevin Northwestern My biases: The teams I coach fairly accurately reflect the kind of arguments that I like to hear. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. If you are a team that that has lots of good specific evidence formed into a coherent strategy, I am likely to be a good judge for you. The flavor of your arguments (old school policy analysis, Ks, etc) matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. If you run an affirmative that has little to do with the topic, or if on the negative you rely on bad topicality or theory arguments, overly generic Ks, agent or consult counterplans, then I most likely am not the judge for you. If you have bad cards, I am definitely am not the judge for you. However, I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.” At the end of the debate I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course over another. The affirmative is responsible for defending the entirety of the plan as presented in the first affirmative speech. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their plan is preferable as compared to the status quo or a negative alternative. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. In other words, the negative must prove a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan that can be avoided by the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A permutation is defined as the entirety of the plan combined with parts or parts of the alternative. The negative has the same burden as the affirmative to read solvency evidence for its alternative. Also, the avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or links of omission, is not likely to be enough: the negative must read specific links and impacts in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. My default setting is to accept conditional arguments within reason. Topical and plan inclusive counterplans are legitimate. Negative strategies reliant on a consultation counterplan produce an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate answers by the affirmative. The plan text must be proven a valid example of the resolution. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately ground issues and fairness determine how strict an interpretation of the topic I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller does not mean that it should be so. Extratopicality arguments are rarely persuasive. The ability of the negative to offer topical and plan inclusive counterplans checks affirmative abuse as does the burden on the affirmative to defend the entirety of the plan as presented in the 1AC throughout the debate. The negative has no right to any argument. The affirmative sets the target. Either run disadvantages to the objectionable parts of the plan or counterplan them away. I cannot imagine voting for the complaint that the affirmative has provided too much information by having a high degree of specificity to its plan text. I also am unlikely to vote negative on the argument that the affirmative failed to specify its agent of action to the degree desired by their opponents. Critical arguments are legitimate strategies for arguing for or against courses of action. However, these are subject to the same evidentiary and competitiveness standards as any other "traditional" debate argument. The negative critique of the affirmative must have a clearly-delineated link to the affirmative and force a choice. Again, links of omission are insufficient. If the negative has a unique link and a clearly-delineated impact, the affirmative should stop whining and answer the argument. Likewise a critical affirmative must fulfill the obligations of any other affirmative--it must be topical and proven to provide a more advantageous course. I do not know what the phrases "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" mean. I am highly unlikely to vote for any "they said bad words" criticism. A criticism may or may not require advocacy of an alternative. I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to read the cards which have been identified by the last two rebuttalists as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications to your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. 92 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hanson, Jim Whitman I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative proposal or framework versus those of the negative position. 1. Affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity types of cases; the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (not just that you have a better interpretation). However, don’t count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; you do have to be topical. 2. Please speak no faster than about 2/3 national circuit rate; speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning. If you have me for an elims round or at the NDT, I’ll just do my best to keep up and read cards at the end of the debate. 3. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the 2NR and 2AR. This is incredibly important in elim rounds where the rounds are often faster than I can fully digest. 4. Please extend evidence by the tag. I usually don’t write down numbers or authors. 5. I sometimes give arguments more weight than the evidence might justify if a good story is told in crossexamination or during a speech. 6. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people, 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I also do not like swearing in a debate round. I really dislike personal attacks on your opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss. 7. Kritiks: Overall, negatives have somewhat of an uphill battle with me when running kritiks though I have and do vote on kritiks. Some key points about my views of kritiks: -Negatives should have specific links and clearly stated implications. Negatives need strong answers to perms. -I have mixed views of “affirmative inclusive kritiks.” I think they give the negative an incredible strategic edge since they now advocate all the good parts of the affirmative. However, negatives should clearly state what they are excluding in the affirmative case and I’m also willing to vote that I should not allow the negative to do an “affirmative inclusive kritik.” -Kritiks against a bad word in an argument are not likely to be voters (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). I will actively avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). -Kritiks that certain terminologies/perspectives used in the round are “distorting” my view are usually not very persuasive because 1) in most of these rounds, I don’t have the distorted view that the negative claims I would have; 2) pointing out the distortions usually ends them. Arguing that these distortions would occur among the public assumes that the public hears the affirmative argument and that is pretty doubtful. -Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “this kritik completely turns solvency” are rarely persuasive to me. Skip the “fiat is illusory” stuff (the case advocacy is every bit as “in round” as your kritik is) and give specific explanations of how the kritik shows the affirmative’s specific advocacy is wrong/harmful/won’t solve. -Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks and show how their case framework’s benefits are more important than the harm of the kritik and why their case actually supports the kritik’s advocacy. -Performativity kritiks against affirmatives. I find some of these to be non-responsive to the affirmative. Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the aff. 9. I rarely vote for arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” and other such arguments that punish a team for choosing to use a particular strategy or genre of argument. I am NOT into the punishment paradigm; in fact, I ACTIVELY AVOID dropping a team for such reasons. To win such an argument, you would have to show that your opponent’s strategy virtually destroyed any chance you have to debate effectively (examples might include: the plan is so vague, it is not clear if there are any arguments that apply; the affirmative 93 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other). You’d do better to try to get reciprocity (e.g. if the negative can conditional counterplan; maybe, MAYBE, the affirmative gets to nonintrinsic disadvantages). 10. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one card turn that turns into 5 minutes of additional links and impacts in the negative block. I am lenient about new arguments until the 2AR. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was so critical. 94 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hardy, Aaron Whitman College by way of MSU. General stuff Technique comes before truth or predisposition. If you win it, I will vote for it, even if it annoys me. Dropped arguments are true for the purposes of the debate. My default approach to any issue is offense and defense. It’s very difficult to win without offense. “Zero risk” makes no sense except in extreme situations or clear technical drops. Aspec (or any other spec) is stupid. It’s not a reason to vote neg and the ground loss is ground we’re better off without. Don’t expect higher than a 27 if aspec is in the 2NR. Cheap shots or a million two second voters are dismissively stupid and without a warrant are unlikely to win my ballot. My default is to decide if the topical plan is better than the squo or a different competitive option. Speed Good. Clarity Good. Clipping Bad. I will read cards after the round unless there was no clash on the underlying issue. I prefer evidence be clearly extended by argument and cite. I reward teams which do better explanations of their evidence. I do not understand judges who don’t read evidence. Debate is half about what happens in the round and half about the quality of the work you do at home. If the judge isn’t going to read evidence, see how good it is, and see how well it supports your argument vs. the other teams, then why bother researching it and reading it in the first place? Topicality Topicality is a voter. It is not genocide. Debate should be predictable and fair for both sides. Topicality is about competing interpretations, although proving ground loss helps the negative immensely. “Reasonability” is not as compelling as “Reasonable limits plus debatable affs grounded in the literature.” Contrived interpretations are usually bad. But as long as we’re going to keep voting for idiotically broad topics, contrived might not be as big a deal. I think a lot of cases being run are not even close to topical. CP’s Theory sucks. It should usually be a strategic option kept open as a last resort. If your pre-round strat is to go for dispo, you should do more work. I usually believe reject arg not team. Dispo bad is a tough sell, conditionality bad is a little easier, PIC’s bad is essentially impossible. Debate should be hard. 95 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet The major exception to the above is functionally competitive counterplans. I am very, very strongly in the textual competition good camp. I think counterplans should compete with the text of the plan, not a cross-ex answer or normal means. I have never heard a coherent offensive warrant to allow counterplans like Consult Brazil, condition the plan on cod fishing, exclude Puerto Rico, or agent CP’s when the aff doesn’t specify their agent. The “scrabble perms” argument is stupid, never happens, and forgets that valid permutations still contain the whole plan. I think that these counterplans are excuses to be lazy, short-circuit topic-specific education, and never learn to actually debate. I especially hate consultation counterplans. Why the aff doesn’t go for “consultation CP’s bad” more often is beyond me. If the negative advances any consultation counterplan in the 1NC, neither negative debater will receive more than 26 speaker points. For each speech the negative doesn’t kick the CP, I will deduct another half point from each speaker. Despite this, I’ve already voted on consultation 3 times this year. The tradeoff is your call. Critiques I’m well read, I understand most things, but I think you should have to cogently explain your arguments in the round, not just throw around a bunch of buzzwords. I’m far less anti-critique than some might think – but I am most persuaded by critiques with a developed framework argument which explains why it’s a reason to vote negative that outweighs the case or changes the way I evaluate the advantages to the plan. Vague claims of “pre-fiat” are not compelling. I don’t think that the entire case goes away just because you said “ontology.” My ballot isn’t going to change the world. Negatives which only defend a vague or exceptionally broad alternative function somewhat like a utopian counterplan – not particularly competitive, and easily susceptible to perms or solvency arguments. When the neg says the alternative is “Vote neg” they are usually lying. Activism I don’t think you should win for doing something good. You should have to win a reason why what they did was bad. No matter what style it gets presented in, debate is fundamentally about arguments – Just because it’s different doesn’t make it good. Switch-side, research intensive, competitive debate is good. Debate is for the debaters, not for me. If I am asked by BOTH teams to give my ballot to someone else or decide in any other fashion, I will do so, even if I personally think that approach 96 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet is pedagogically lacking. However, I will NOT punish any team for refusing an offer and choosing to debate the relative merits of an alternative approach. Questions are welcome. 97 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Harris, Scott Kansas I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates. I will read evidence. I do expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences. While I have voted for affirmatives that are not tied to the resolution I believe that the resolution should play a central role in debates and that the affirmative should defend a topical example of the resolution. I do not generally believe that topicality is the first step to genocide. I do not think that people go for topicality enough. I believe that it is a real argument and the fact that negatives fill their speech time with other arguments has nothing to do with whether or not topicality is a voting issue. Running a case all year does not make it any more topical at the end of the year then it was at the beginning. While I will vote for theory arguments they are not my favorite voting issue. I am a fan of tight strategies. I love a good counterplan. I am a fan of pics. I believe the negative needs to win a substantial risk of a net benefit. You need to actually win a plausible link not just say there is a 1% risk of a link. I am willing to say there is no link. I am also willing to say that an aff has no solvency. I like critical arguments which challenge explicit choices made by the opposition. The fact that an argument is called a K does not automatically make it a voting issue. Impacts to criticisms are important debates that don’t happen often enough. Wrong forum/framework arguments make little sense to me. The idea that ethics/values/ontology are inappropriate in a policy framework is a position that puzzles me. On the other hand claims that consequences to embracing a particular ethic are irrelevant leave me equally puzzled. I believe the quality of evidence is important. I like debates to be pleasant experiences for competitors and audience alike. Do not be a jerk to your opponent or your partner. I like smart arguments that are part of the specific debate rather than a rehashing of the same speech you have done in every round. I think debate should be fun. Humor is greatly appreciated. 98 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Harris, Tasha Louisville I do not flow but I do take notes. I have not been trained in traditional debate so I am not partial to speed or line by line refutation. I will occasionally read evidence at the end of the round. I am looking for a clear concise argument with real world implications. This is my first year in debate with no high school experience so do not assume that I'm familiar with debate jargon and when in doubt over explain. 99 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hausrath, Barry This is an activity that can be educational and fun. Being an asshole tends to defeat both purposes, so play nice. You can be both funny and a decent person. Theory: I do not think that I have any particular predisposition toward or against any particular brand of cp or theoretical objection, but I do tend to sympathize with the argument that weird CPs justify weird answers. Topicality: I will vote on it, but take nothing for granted. The one argument that I have shown a de facto predisposition for is the implementation extra-topicality concerns with the SORT; however, I have heard and voted aff on some very persuasive defenses of specification as well. Policy vs. Criticism: I think that the false dichotomy between policy and criticism is an unfortunate development over the past several years, and debaters who bridge that gap are far more likely to win my ballot. One good way to do this is to consider the way that critical concerns with particular policy actions affect the implementation and adequacy of the policies themselves. I am not particularly fond of pre/post-fiat distinctions that serve no purpose other than artificial separation of thought and action. Specific evidence is far preferable to fyi’s about the resolution like “you use the state.” I do not feel any argument is more or less worthy of space on my flow as a result of its content and consider almost everything debatable. If you would like to quote lyrics, narratives, etc. in your speech to support your arguments, then go you, but they constitute neither arguments nor a speech in and of themselves (although they may be used as evidentiary support). I expect you to debate, not DJ. If both teams are content playing music, I will be happy to evaluate your DJ skills. Keep in mind that at the end of the debate I rate your speaking ability, not Eminem’s. 100 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Heidt, David Emory 1. Speaking—I find that I am penalizing people for being unclear more and more frequently. I have deducted as much as a point and a half for extreme unclarity—both in making arguments and in reading evidence. Just be careful—either do clarity drills or go slightly slower. Also, I am very annoyed at debaters (mostly first affirmatives) that are such jackasses in cross-x that they take pride in not answering questions. I have yet to explicitly penalize anyone for this behavior, but it may effect my perception of you generally and that could effect speaker points subconsciously at least. 2. Arguments—I have extreme personal biases against certain arguments that seem to become more extreme as time passes. That said, I do my best to vote on the arguments presented in the debate and minimize the impacts of these biases as much as possible. For example, while I think that the kinds of critical affs that make arguments about not defending a plan in the world of fiat are unfair, anti-educational, and probably hinder activism more than they help it, I have yet to see a negative team outdebate the affirmative on their framework. Likewise, I also have a pretty strong bias against most politics disads, but its pretty rare that I vote against them on the reasons I believe they’re bad. This is important: I do not believe that a team needs offense to win a debate. I can vote negative on presumption, or vote aff because of a terminal uniqueness question or because a counterplan has no credible net benefit. Of course, offense helps, and the debates that I vote for a team that has no offense are rare, but they do happen. 3. Techincal issues: You need to properly explain and impact your arguments; this is particularly true for theory debates. It is highly unlikely that I will vote for you on poorly explained voting issue claims (even if they are dropped) unless you explain why it’s a reason to reject the team as opposed to the argument itself. Associating the words “voting issue” with the word “permutation” isn’t very persuasive on its own—my default calculus is to say that the permutation is not allowed. This is also how I feel about so-called discursive arguments—I think its reasonable to reject a certain discourse but that doesn’t have to also entail punishing a team for using it. Both of these things are clearly debatable and I have voted on intrinsicness permutations before, but you just may have a higher burden of proof in front of me with these arguments than you would with other judges. I am lenient with cross applications and new impact assessments; on the other hand, I have disallowed both sometimes when the other team has been persuasive about why I shouldn’t. You can ask me about anything else you have questions about. 101 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Helwich, David Cram Macalester These musings represent my personal preferences and opinions, and are thus open to debate. My Background: My academic work focuses on critical theory and public argument, particularly environmental regulation and security discourse. I read a lot of articles, and have done quite a bit of research on this topic. My dissertation is, in part, concerned with Bush's new nuclear policy. I do not know if this helps or hurts my judging in TNWs debates-perhaps a bit of both. Argument Preferences: I do the vast majority of my research and coaching on policy arguments. I really only read critical theory as part of my scholarship. Consequently, it is odd that I often feel pigeonholed as a K-oriented judge, which may be attributed to my willingness to give a fair hearing to alternative forms of argumentation. I like good policy debate. I also like good critical debate. In other words, I like _good_ debate. If your stylist preferences include agent CPs and politics, I am willing to listen to them, just as I am willing to listen to performative affs. The Topic: I do not like this topic very much-too little predictable, _consistent_ negative ground for my taste. At this point in the year, I have done enough research/seen enough debates to feel comfortable judging technical debates about TNWs, the Farm Bill, GMOs, and NATO. I have done less research on Iraq, Turkey/Greece and DNA, so please be careful of acronyms and the like. Explain and you will be fine, but please do not assume I know as much about the patent law as you do. Delivery: Please be clear. I give verbal prompts if comprehensibility becomes an issue, but am prone to giving up if you ignore me. Topicality: I vote on topicality. I believe that the affirmative, in most cases, should specify how they implement their plan. I prefer that the argument be well developed (a big chunk of the block and the 2NR) if you plan on going for it. I tend to think that many debaters spend far too much time debating the “link” on topicality (violation) and not enough time debating the “impact” (comparing the effects of competing interpretations on what and how we debate). Kritiks: I read a fair amount of critical theory. Many people believe that this likely leaves me biased towards more critical forms of argument. However, please do not assume that my scholarly orientation means that I hack for the K. I enjoy a good kritik debate, but cringe at the thought of judging bad ones. I am not particularly impressed by the ability to cram as many multi-syllable words into a speech as possible-explaining what your argument means is far more important than showing that you have mastered a cultural studies vocab list. You should also not assume that I am necessarily familiar with the intricacies of your favorite arm-chair intellectual-the A and B sections of even a moderate library are enormous. Negatives usually win when they identify a _specific_ link and articulate a _specific_ impact and explain how that impact interacts with the impact of the case. I also think that affs are better off engaging with a criticism than simply spewing down a generic “pomo ain’t good” frontline. Affirmatives seem to be much more successful in front of me if they begin with a sound defense of the theoretical underpinnings of their advocacy. I have judged seven critical affs this year and voted aff four times and neg three times. I find many non-traditional means of affirming (or negating) to be interesting. However, I am concerned about fairness issues. Do what you want, justify it, and you will be okay. Counterplans/Theory: I am becoming increasingly frustrated with many of the theory debates that I hear. They tend to be repetitive, virtually incomprehensible spew-downs that frequently fail to clash. I do not believe that a team needs 10 warrants to win a theory debate. I tend towards an “2A” outlook on counterplan theory-PICs/PECs, conditionality/dispositionality, etc. seem somewhat suspect in my mind. I think most negatives could avoid a lot of trouble by simply going for their counterplans. However, virtually anything is up for debate-simply recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Before any negatives get too concerned, you should know that I have yet to vote on a theory/abuse argument this year. I also have a fairly strong bias against voting on “cheap shots…” Alleged abuse seems to even out as a debate progresses. However, you should not view this as a license to drop them at will. Rebuttals: Few teams ever win every single argument in a round. Successful debaters are those who are able to 102 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet recognize where they are ahead in the debate and demonstrate why those issues/arguments are more important than the ones on which they are behind. Utilizing “even if” statements and discussing the probabilities of comparable impacts are good places to begin. Please tell me _why_ your arguments mean that you win. If you fail to impact your arguments in the final rebuttal, you may not be happy with how I decide to evaluate them. Decision Calculus: My default is to compare the positive and negative consequences of the plan versus those of the status quo (or counterplan). I am open to the idea of using other frameworks. I tend to only call for cards if I cannot resolve a factual claim otherwise, or if a 2NR/2AR asks me specifically to look at them. I also am inclined to defer to unanswered evidence and impact comparisons. Decorum: I believe that exclusive practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner(intentionally engaging in hostile, racist, sexist or heterosexist acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.” If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round. 103 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Herndon , Scott Every year I write a long, “detailed” philosophy, and in the am never satisfied with the result. This will be an attempt to summarize my basic feeling about debate without requiring you (the reader) to sort through a boring diatribe on the state of debate. Here goes nothing. First and foremost, I see debate as a game of strategy. If your style is to use academic debate as a forum for your personal activism, or as a way to further a project then read no further: I am probably not the judge for you. This does not mean that I don’t like critiques, that I won’t listen to non-traditional arguments, or that I will write off your arguments if they do not meet rigid traditional debate standards. I like to hear variety of arguments, and I want the debaters to express themselves and have fun. This being said, it is fair to warn you: while I will follow you where you take the debate, the more radical the departure, the harder I find it to evaluate, and the more likely I am to default to more traditional impact analysis and ways of resolving the round. If you are running a critical argument in front of me, you should know this is not the sort of literature I read for fun, nor is it the focus of my research as a coach. You will get better results if you take the time to explain links (by using examples from the case) and if your impact can be understood as a case turn or weighed with an external impact (it’s the biopower DA judge – *wink* to the hippy). So, you are still reading? Good. You probably did not have to use a lot of brainpower to guess that I prefer strategies that focus around a disadvantage (or 4) and counterplan or case turns. The best debates I have judged revolve around these issues, and I think that I am doing my best work as a critic when these are the focus of the debate. Again, this does not mean that I don’t like critical debates, but you are probably best to tone down the radicalism and adapt, just a little, to my policy-maker biases. A few other things you might like to know. I like fast debate, but I need to be able to flow you. This means be clear! If I can’t understand you, there is little doubt that I will ask you to fix it, and if you can’t, it will impact your speaker points. If I can’t flow an argument, I won’t evaluate it. It is your job to make arguments clear to me. This includes theory arguments read at your absolute top speed. If your strategy is to go for theory (which is fine) or 6 minutes of ISPEC, it would be in your interest to slow down a little and give me a touch of pen time. This is probably not everything you wanted to know (perhaps it is more), so feel free to ask me questions. Finally, have fun, be funny, go fast, be smart, and everything will be fine. 104 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hester, Mike Michael Hester 10 years D6/Southeast region 15 rounds- 8 NEG / 7 AFF Frontline Answers to Judge Framework Arguments 1) Philosophies are vacuous – good judging is not about a universalized list of rules Hester, 1999 [Michael, 1999 judge philosophy] I vote for the team that I think won the debate. Tabula rasa judging is not possible, but I try to vote on the arguments as they are presented in the debate. Questions of paradigm and meta-theory are really normative questions; some debaters feel that there is an objective decision in a given debate, but this mischaracterizes the decision-making process as mechanistic rather than evaluative. 2) A better judge for Kentucky than they realize Hester, 2004 [Michael, 2004 judge philosophy] In all honesty, I don’t know what to say. I’ve stared at this screen, trying all kinds of ‘philosophies.’ Most ended up with me ranting how debate is too serious and why debate is a game and people who think it’s some forum for their social movement should stop spending their school’s money on travel and nice hotels and actually take to the streets. 3) Time Cube is not the key to my ballot Hester, 2000 [Michael, 2000 philosophy] Don't 'overadapt.' Because my decision-making is so flexible, you'll be better off running args THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, rather than trying something funky just cuz i'm a freak. i will try very hard to understand whatever you have to say. You are the star of this show. More evidence – Hester, 2000 [Michael, 2000 judge philosophy] Theory arguments and critiques are fine. I try to judge the debate the way the debaters debated it. If you win reasons that your argument means I should vote for you, then I will. One more card - Hester, 2001 [Michael, 2001 judge philosophy] A claim and warrant are enough. So malthus (which disgusts me) and Aspec(which disgusts me even more) are no problem. My values rarely, if ever, matter in any given debate. 4) Static ground is a myth, but reciprocal ground is inevitable – whining teams worry about the former while winning teams capitalize on the latter Hester, 2003 [Michael, 2003 judge philosophy] …to sum up my philosophy in a sentence: "reciprocity" means that any trick your opponent pulls to rob you of the ground they thought you'd want always opens up some ground that you can use - your job is to recognize what it is, have done some research in preparation, and be ready to rub their noses in it. 105 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hoe, Joshua B. Michigan There are two filters that I apply to debate rounds. My first filter: fairness. Do the arguments as they are extended conform to my notions of fairness in a debate round? Do they provide debatable ground for both teams where clash is encouraged? Are the arguments extended in such a way that both teams have the fair chance to debate the claims and warrants provided in arguments? In other words, I do take into account more than the truth claims of arguments when I evaluate them at the end of a debate round. If the affirmative, for instance, comes up with a "true" answer in the 2AR, that argument, while true, probably did not provide a fair chance for rejoinder. This belief in debates starting at a fair place explains my issues, well documented in edebate discussions, about “performance” style affirmative cases. In other words, I think that the negative should be able to predict an affirmative approach by looking at the wording of the topic. The second filter is truth. Once the arguments in a debate round conform to my sense of fairness (defined here as both sides got a chance to argue – clash was encouraged) I will evaluate competing arguments based upon the relative truth of those competing arguments. I will examine that evidence which backs claims as it is isolated by the teams in the debate round. In other words, I will only read that evidence which is identified with accompanying warrant by the team/s in the debate round. Critiques - Questioning assumptions seems valuable to me. The assumption that only utilitarian norms have importance seems hopelessly shallow to me. That said, however, very few teams divorce the meaning from the jargon in rounds. Counterplans - My predisposition is probably toward what many would Term "abusive" counterplans. This is not to say that my predisposition will overwhelm the discussion in the debate, only that I have a predisposition. I think all counterplans are by nature similar to the plan (by actor, action, etc). I do not think plan-inclusive counterplans are tantamount to theft. Disadvantages - The bread and butter of the negative win. How rounds usually break down - Most rounds come down to one of the following comparisons: 1. The Disadvantage risk versus the risk of the case 2. The solvency deficit to the counterplan plus any disadvantage to the counterplan plus any increment of net benefit captured by the permutation minus the net benefit to the counterplan alone 3. The critique obviates the need to consider the case beyond its Relationship as a link 4. Topicality obviates the need to consider the case 106 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Holbrook, Sarah This is my first year judging college debate, I debated for West Georgia and have been active in high school and college debate for awhile. I'm willing to listen to just about anything you want to debate about, this year I've judged everything from CTBT throwdowns to short fiction. I'll caution that the farther you choose to stray from "traditional" debate, the more burden is on you to explain what your argument is, what it means, and how it should be evaluated. My academic work is political science not philosophy, so K's of representation, gender, etc come easier to me than philisophical ones (an admittedly arbitrary distinction), so take that into consideration when deciding how much time to spend explaining your arg. As for the K on the Aff, I'm willing to listen, but I do think the aff has some burden to create a fair debate, only meaning that the neg should probably have some ground even if it isn;t necessarily the ground they wanted. Mostly that's for y'all to debate out. CP theory I thik I lean a bit negative, but that shouldn't mean the aff shouldn'y go for theory if it's necessary or if they are winning it and certainly doesn;t relieve the neg of defending their CP. Same with theory on the K, with maybe a little more sympathy for theory objections to unexplained alternatives, but these args seem to selsom be developed by the Aff. As for the rest of it, I find myself reading as few cards as necessary to decide the debate, meaning I would rather vote on how y'all debated it out rather than on what your cards all say. Otherwise, why not just stack up all your cards and let me sift through them to decide whose are better. Impact assessment, I know all judges say that and all debater say yeah, of course, but being on the other side now I realize how much less often it happens than debaters think it does. 107 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Holland, Shannon Topicality/theory—I enjoy good theory debates but hate listening to underdeveloped theoretical arguments. I am not going to decide debates based on aff block v. neg block at the end of the debate. If you are going to win a theory debate, you need examples and thorough explanation. 5 good, fully developed “conditionality bad” arguments will almost always outweigh 20 “conditionality good” tag lines. My general rule—if I am not persuaded by your five best arguments supporting your theoretical position, I will not be persuaded by your 20 additional rationales. I think some of the “spec” arguments can be persuasive based on the situation (although Ospec seems a little silly to me). Generally, I am more persuaded by “in-round abuse” arguments than by “this sets a precedent”/future abuse arguments. Critical arguments—Critical arguments are fine. Almost always, I find specific links/link turns more persuasive than general “state bad” arguments. I think debaters on both sides should interrogate the links and implications of both the K and the case. Alternatives are not necessary, but aff teams can easily persuade me that pure rejection is not a viable solution to a given problem. I think the framework debate can be helpful, but I think affirmative teams rely too much on framework defenses. “Aff has the right to choose” is not a persuasive reason to not evaluate the rhetorical implications of the case. Cplans—I am a big fan of counterplans. Agent cplans/pics are fine with me, but I am open to the theoretical objections that aff teams may have to such cplans. In general, I give the negative some leeway on cplans (particularly in the case of PICs or dispositional counterplans). If you are affirmative, “conditionally bad” arguments are the most persuasive cplan theory arguments, although I could be persuaded to vote on other theoretical objects depending upon the debate. Disads—a good idea—you should run them. New cases out the NDT—I am ok with them. Evidence and Arguments—In general, debaters should provide warrants for their claims. “Read the card” is not a warrant for an argument, and I feel uncomfortable reconstructing the debate by reading evidence and then providing the warrants that should have been explicated during the round. That does not mean that I do not read cards. It just means that I will not do the work for you. I generally dislike very short cards that have highlighted down to a single sentence or phrase. Usually, I evaluate a single card with good analysis to be more significant than 5 cards with unexplained claims. Style—Do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed. If I cannot understand you (and I will tell you), it really does not matter how many arguments you make or how many cards you read. Also, people should be relatively nice as well. 108 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hood, Paul My overarching demand: I like to be engaged in the round and evaluating arguments while they are being made. I will read evidence if I need to verify evidence comparisons made by debaters, but I won’t dig through blocks to reconstruct the round. I expect debaters to make their arguments clear to me while they are speaking. Some Specifics: I am open to most argument with a few important exceptions and qualifications. Critiques: First, critiques are fine, but I am fairly demanding of them. I greatly prefer critiques to be germane to the topic and expect you to explain the relevance of the critique to the resolution or the affirmative case. Carded arguments explaining why it’s important for intellectuals (or somebody) to consider the critique are also important. I also want locus arguments from both the affirmative and negative: tell me why I should look at the round in a way that gives greater significance to your arguments as opposed to your opponents. That’s fairly simple when we’re comparing two impacts from the same genre, two war impacts for instance, but when I’m comparing a policy impact to a critique I want to know why to appreciate one over the other. Saying “pre-fiat” is more important than “post-fiat” is not good enough. I’m betting you can do better than that. Defense: I like detailed arguments, defensive or otherwise. I suspect I’m more open than most judges to deciding issues based on defensive arguments if those defensive arguments are at the core of the topic, especially on solvency. I get about as close to an old-fashioned stock issues judge on solvency as you will find in NDT. For instance, if the plan uses the WTO DSB and the negative has specific evidence showing the DSB would reject jurisdiction of the dispute, I don’t find it persuasive for the affirmative to say, “The argument is just defensive. Now extend the IPR disease impacts.” In that instance I may become convinced that the negative has a better understanding of the plan mechanism than does the affirmative and vote on solvency alone. Isn’t that just crazy. Theory Debates: I like theory, but debaters tend to ignore the nuances of theory and instead claim that entire forms of argument are always illegitimate, rather than suggesting limited circumstances for legitimacy. A little subtlety would be appreciated. Think about that. I have a few of my own rules. They may be revised in the future: 1) A single conditional or dispositional counterplan is fine, but, on my ballot, if the negative is still advocating the counterplan at the end of the block, they are stuck with it. Allowing the negative to jettison the counterplan in the 2NR puts unreasonable pressure on the 1AR and makes for crappy ballots. 2) Perms are tests. They don’t need to be advocated. If I’m voting between policies, then I vote for a policy or combination of policies and that selection determines the team I vote for. In other words, at the end of the round I can vote for any policy advocated in the 2NR or the 2AR or a combination of those policies even if the perm was not “advocacy” but only used to show that the combination was possible or beneficial. 3) Topicality is a voting issue, and abuse-ground is not the only reason to prefer an interpretation. In fact, I don’t like the way abuse-ground debates have consumed all other considerations on topicality. When you look a word up in a dictionary do you expect to see a utility calculation justifying the definition? It seems that context, usage and clarity are important paths to definitions, and abuseground comes after them when two definitions are otherwise pretty much even. 109 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Hovden, Jan I have judged very few debates on this year’s topic, so I haven’t had a lot of exposure to much of the topic specific literature. Make sure that you explain things. This statement is a reflection of how I generally view debate and what becomes my default position if debaters do not argue that I should do otherwise, i.e. if you want me to view the round differently than what I have presented here, make an argument and defend it. Counterplans – I think a functional approach to competition is generally a better standard than textual competition. I generally think dispositional counterplans are fine. If you are going for a counterplan and a disad/kritik in the 2nr, it is usually a good idea to explain what happens in the world in which you lose the competition debate on the counterplan, i.e. does it mean I revert back to the status quo, and if so, how does the status quo and the disad/kritik interact with the case. For the aff, you need to explain what happens if the neg loses the competition debate, i.e. does it mean they lose the debate or does it mean they revert back to the status quo. Disads – I don’t find an assessment of any risk of a link to be persuasive in a lot of situations. You would be better served analyzing why the risk is actually possible. Two caveats to this: a world in which the counterplan solves as well or better than case, or when case solvency/harms have been mitigated to virtually zero. Kritiks – I like kritiks that I can understand. I have not read a chunk of the critical literature. This doesn’t mean that you should avoid kritiks, it just means that you should explain what your evidence means without simply repeating key words utilized by the author because odds are I won’t have the necessary background knowledge to understand what they mean in the way you want me to understand it. The more postmodern and/or esoteric your kritik is, the more work you need to do on the alternative. I prefer having a general sense of what the alt looks like as opposed to a vague sense of what it might potentially be. Performance – These are fine as long as discernable arguments are present, and I can understand what it means when I vote for you at the end of the debate. Theory – I prefer theory debates that are well developed and explained. Avoid blippy responses. They are hard to flow and very seldom make an argument. I prefer not to vote on cheap shot theory arguments, but alas, I sometimes find that I have no other choice. If it is a stupid argument, you should be able to readily beat it. Don’t rely on the assumption that I think it is stupid too. General stylistic stuff/things that will get you better speaker points – 1. debaters in the last two rebuttals should not pretend that they are winning all of their arguments 100%. While this occurs on occasion, it is very seldom the case. You are better served discussing what happens when you only win part of your arguments. What happens if you win the disad but not the case takeouts? What happens if you are winning a marginal risk of a disad, and the affirmative is winning some risk of case? etc. Tell a compelling story at the end of the debate that clearly explains what the world in which I vote for you would look like. 2. I prefer rounds in which the debaters treat each other with a modicum of respect. I don’t think you should spend cross ex and speech time dehumanizing your opponents. That is not to mean that some gentle teasing can’t occur, but it should be in the spirit of fun. 3. I like to laugh. When you make me laugh, I like to give you higher speaker points. Fortunately for you, I’m easily amused. 4. If you choose to gender paraphrase a piece of evidence, it needs to be noted in the speech that you have done so. Any questions, please ask. I much prefer to discuss my views of debate before the round than after the round when you are upset that you lost. 110 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Irizarry, Frank Florida If you believe… If you believe…that the resolution is nothing more than “Resolved”…that politics disads are evil…that all of your arguments should be referred to as your “project”…that you really open up “discursive space” with anything you do in the debate…that any marginalized and disenfranchised people benefit from you debating…Topicality is genocidal, homicidal, suicidal or any other “idal”…that anything you do in the 1AC is enough to win you the debate before the 1NC speaks…that anything written by French or Eastern European philosophers is the “heart of the topic”…that conservative oriented arguments are all nothing more than offensive and racist…that debate should be nothing more than a liberal soapbox to talk about how America and the West are the embodiment of evil… that advocacy is nothing more than an “old, dead, white man concept”…that your case doesn’t really need to solve because you are A)just placing a demand on the USFG, B) opening up some of that ol’ discursive space, C) incorporating disenfranchised voices into your project, D) (insert some other reason that abdicates your basic affirmative responsibility)…that your kritik doesn’t need to be a case turn or solvency takeout…that “dead, white, male is even an argument…shopping at Walmart is acceptable…debate = social activism…that “predictable ground” is a bad standard…that good ol’ counterplan/disad debates are outdated…that Russ Hubbard was the devil...that you don’t have to defend all of the terms in the resolution…that debate is as bad as the west and it is your personal crusade to change it or destroy it…that all cards should have a minimum of 10 words that have 8 syllables each…that you don't REALLY have to defend the resolution...then you probably want to strike me!!! …than you probably want to strike me!!! I am frustrated with a lot of the stuff I see happening in college debate today. Josh Hoe managed to articulate the angst I have with many Affirmative practcies when he wrote: "I guess what really bothers me about the "ME POLITICAL" move...Is that it is fundamentally selfish. The debaters do not create a meaningful space for the negative and then get hostile when the negative objects. If, as Ross has frequently suggested, the affirmative did what they want but created a system for evaluating the debate that had a MEANINGFUL place for the negative and FAIR way for the judge to evaluate the debate I think I would be less Hostile to the move people are making. Instead, I hear things like "we will affirm whatever the hell we want to" and if you dont like it "your silencing of our voice is reprehensible." AFFIRMATIVES: Be fair to the negative and create meaningful space for the debate to occur as opposed to the selfserving, self aggrandizing, self-righteous and self-promotional tautological nonsense that many of you are tyring to pass off as good and reasonable argument. You know who you are. 111 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Janas, Mike I believe that the best debates involve discussions of exclusive policies. In this world the best debaters are those that explain both the force of their argumentation and the flawed logic of their opponents (short of claiming that they are insane). At the end of the debate I seek to find a single coherent story to explain all of the arguments in the debate. I will be troubled when teams end up with competing stories without giving me a way to choose between them. When I give my decision, it will be in the form of a narrative that weaves the established facts together. Evidence: It should be clearly read. It is the backing for a claim and is not the claim itself. To say in the final rebuttals" pull the so and-so card" is to utter almost complete nonsense. The argument lies in more than just the authority that creates the backing. The relationship between the argument and the evidence that supports it should be clear from the start-which means that both should be comprehensibly read. If I do not know what you are talking about, I will not call for it. Affirmative burdens: Once a team has offered a plan as a solution to a problem, then they are stuck with it, unamended until the end of the debate. I also believe that they have the burden of proof-that they do not have presumption-and that they must prove prima facie burdens (such as solvency for some identified advantage) before they can win a round. Negative burdens: I think that the negative incur obligations when they enter into a debate. Their obligations include being able to show that their arguments provide a reason to reject the affirmative. If this obligation is not met, I give the affirmative great leeway in answering disadvantages and kritiks. I also think that negatives must provide some risk analysis that explains how to resolve tensions between the affirmative case and the negative positions. Counterplans: They must provide a reason to reject the plan. If a counterplan is competitive, I do not care about its topicality. However, counterplans do have to be developed (with solvency evidence) and offered in the first speech (since they are a presupposition for other arguments). I assume, if you enter it as a comparative position, that you are going to keep with it, un-amended, until the end of the debate. Preemption: counterplans are not the same as disadvantages: the first is an argumentative claim of policy while the other is an argumentative claim of fact. I believe that permutations are good tests of competition (not policies to be advocated). You must give a disposition to permutations so that I know what you think I should do with a non-competitive counterplan. Topicality: Limits debates are pretty interesting to me. However, I am not a fan of punitive arguments. You must give a unique reason to vote against a team on topicality. 112 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kritiks: I have voted for several this year. I am sympathetic to the political orientation of many. I think that the best kritik debates should center on reasons why we should reject a particular line of thought on a particular issue on this day (intrinsic kritiks). Short of them being dropped,I do not think that I am sympathetic to arguments that simply state the affirmative uses instrumental logic that is bad(extrinsic kritiks). I seem to have an unusual concern for performative contradictions. Also, I do not believe that fiat is hypothetical or that debate is just a game. I believe that debate is an act of participatory criticism and that all debaters have an ideological obligation to participate. Regarding performance, I think that debate is performative-a team’s just performing in some alternative way does not really get you anything if you do not provide a reason why it is competitive with your opponents performance. Generally, I think that the world is a pretty consistent place. I try to resolve the debate by finding a single story that accounts for most of the issues in the debate. Usually, I will not vote for contradictory positions-but will take stuff from other parts of the debate to finesse the tensions. Sometimes, to accomplish this in the absence of any debater's arguments, I will supply facts from my empirical knowledge of the world to judge between incommensurate stories. Even though I am older, I cut a lot of evidence. However, I am not so much a fan of evidence as I am a fan of the synergy of information and narratives that are supported or suggested by that evidence. My suggestion is that you tell a story that accounts for all of the issues in the round before I do. 113 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Johnson, Paul Wake Forest This philosophy is an ongoing account of how I have adjudicated debates thus far and how I feel like I will probably settle debates in the future. So far this year I have judged 16 rounds at two tournaments- and have voted about equally Aff and Neg- I have voted on T for Affs which clearly seemed not topical to me, and on T against Affs which seemed clearly topical to me (non economic sanctions do exist, according to some pretty good evidence). I have voted for and against kritiks and kritik Affs. I have voted for dirty cheap shots that I felt were not answered but were barely arguments. I have voted against the best speeches I have seen this year because of technical drops. I do not like having to make technical factors overcome truth or argument quality but apparently am unable to prevent myself from myself. I believe as the year and my judging experience progresses this will be less likely but be forewarned. Most people tend to select judges to prefer based on several factors- word of mouth, what that person did when they debated, what squad they coach for, and temperament/points. Other than word of mouth, I can tell you about these four factors as much as will be helpful to you making your decision. How I debated: I suppose many of you will find this especially relevant since this is my first year out- I debated at the University of Pittsburgh for four years after debating for four years in high school. My experience at Pittsburgh was a near equal mix of policy and critical debate, characterized by large policy Affs and diverse negative strategies which often included 1NC’s containing counterplans, kritiks, disads, topicality, and a multivarious number of case arguments. I went for theory a lot, but could understand why it was hard for judges to resolve and sometimes unpleasant. My favorite judges as a debater were Scott Harris, Mike Eber, and Sam Maurer- this does not ensure I am frighteningly unpredictable, short, or in love with Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. I had little tolerance for asinine arguments, but lost to my fair share (Chalkonuclear testing would melt the earth!!). The dumbest Aff I ever saw was either a GMO’s aff that flipped the links around and claimed to starve Africans with a Malthus advantage, or one that enslaved Native Americans to build nuclear weapons. The smartest Aff I saw was any well constructed Iraq Aff on the Europe topic. I was rather technical as a debater. Temperament/Speaker Points- despite falling off a mountain in the preseason this year, I am generally in a pretty good mood. I am very busy and so it is likely at a debate tournament I might be a little testier because I am relatively tired, but its nothing personal and will likely not be reflected in speaker points. I enjoy humor in a debate, and I mean I know all judges say they like jokes and stuff, but why aren’t more of you funny when you speak? It would be a great help. I believe that point inflation is rampant in my community, but as a critic it is my job to assign points fair for the community relatively- basically if you debate well enough that I think you should be a clearing team you will get the correct speaker points to reflect this- around a 28 or better given the mean at Georgia State and Kentucky this year. 114 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet I coach for Wake Forest but the connection is more than skin deep- this is the third stop where my higher ups have been individuals who spent significant time either debating or coaching at Wake- so I believe some of the following things fairly strongly: -stupid arguments are stupid - reasonability is a good argument against topicality until abuse is demonstrated - most likely a theory argument is a reason to reject the argument, not the team - good analyticals can beat bad cards, or good cards that make the wrong argument - Offense/defense is not my default paradigm; there can be zero-risk of an argument (Consult NB’s anyone?) - Cult of uniqueness does not make much sense to me- 10% uniqueness plus a massive link seems like a big ol’ impact, or at least much bigger than non-zero Everything above basically gives you the tools you need to win any argument in front of me, whether you like kritiks, disads, extremely critical performance, or whatever. But since lots of people seem to want to know a judge’s perspective on everything, I will deliver some spiels to help with other matters as well. 115 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kall, Aaron General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block. Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the 2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans compete. Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably too late for me to consider them. Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can understand what you are saying. Kritiks as netbenefits to counterplans or alternatives that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle. Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence. Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to be considered. 116 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Pet Peeves- The phrase cold conceded, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, inefficient cursing, etc. 117 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Katsulas, John Boston College 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 a 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. 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 on 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) Agent specification is required. If the affirmative refuses during the cross-examination to specify the essential details of plan implementation, then I am receptive to arguments for why they should lose the debate. But before running ASPEC, you need to ask about the agent during cross-examination. 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 world anarchy good. 118 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Keenan, Vik Scene 1 – Enter Clueless Debater. Clueless Debater sets up for round, and notices Grumpy Critic. Clueless Debater: (reading from standard novice issue cue card) Before we start, I’ve never had you as a judge, so I was wondering if you have any preferences? Grumpy Critic: I would prefer . . . a good debate. Clueless Debater continues fully content that the 27 cards on uniqueness will surely impress the critical hack in the back of the room, because all that lexis research makes a damn fine debate. Do not be a Clueless Debater. My first preference is that you have an idea of what preferences you need to know. If the following is still not helpful, ASK! (me, the magic 8 ball, someone I know – it’s the same skill from cross-ex, but nicer). In general, “good debate” probably has something involving argument, refutation, analysis, etc. And I like a clear story – I find it far more helpful if YOU tell me how the round should be decided. Scene 2 – The bar at the tournament hotel. Grumpy Critic is sharing a refreshment with Party Coach. Party Coach: yeah . . .but (slurp) that doesn’t really help if they don’t know who you are .. .or if they think what they do is pretty standard . . . specifics, dude . . . they want specifics. Saves time on the theory.belch Grumpy Critic: I suppose. Party Coach: and you’re always talking about that word . . . with an “a” . .. Grumpy Critic: Adaptation? Party Coach: Noooo .. . yeah . . . no! Persuasion. Knowing where you’re at, like, paradigmatically makes them more persuasive. Saves the pain . . . Grumpy Critic: I find getting me coffee in the morning most persuasive. So fine, you’ve decided some pre-exisiting specifics might be helpful, because you’re smart enough to figure out that tabula rasa is a lie. I like you already. As reward for your cleverness: “T” – much like mom’s meatloaf, you love it, hate it, or are a vegan who finds it an abomination on this earth: I reward clever use of procedurals, but have tended to not vote on them. This is usually because debaters don’t commit and give me enough analysis; I like proceduarals, really. (I have counted 8 different 119 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet rounds this year when the 2nr did not go for T when they were winning.) In fact, being afraid to go for T when it’s good is almost more of a sin than going for T that’s underdeveloped. Much like meatloaf, I can take it, leave it, or respect than I’m in for Linda McCarthy’s Holiday Loaf. Kritik – more than just a nonunique disad: Look, I debated and judge in the northeast, so I’m definitely more familiar with why the government, patriarchy, and capitalism all SUCK, than with how squirrels will cause nuclear war. You need to do the work on comparing that pre/post/discursive/activism stuff, but I’m a bit predisposed on the warrants. Conversely . . . DA’s – more than just a chance to read Mead ’98: They’re fine, I just like to kid. Just make sure the internal link story is cleared up at some point. And just don’t expect me to read through the uniqueness card war after round (and care) – if I want to read like that I’ll assign research papers to my students. Theory – why else run a counterplan?: Theory good. Good theory debate good. Really. Lots of happy faces. However, unarticulated, unwarranted reading drills mid-speech are bad. I am the last judge in the world to vote on the blippy RVI at the bottom of the T flow that has no analysis no matter how many times you tell me it’s "the easy way out." It’s a debate round, not a bad date. I am especially happy when the theory debate clarifies how positions interact or are prioritized. Flow – usually just a yes or no question: The answer is yes (on paper even, bastion of the old guard that I am.) unless I get a warranted reason not to (helps if it’s made earlier than later). I flow yes, but I’m human. I’ve been known to miss stuff, as we all have. Clarity helps avoid that. I don’t have the time to keep up on the topic literature in depth, but that doesn’t mean I don’t welcome an in depth debate. It does mean I will miss the nuance of some argumentation unless you articulate it for me. Scene 3: Hanging at the tab table, Grumpy Critic has had some coffee and wants to absorb the insight and knowledge of the Director Icons. Director Icon #1: Look, y’all gotta say something. The overview prolif is getting out of HAND. 8 in the 1ar alone. It’s ridiculous. 120 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Director Icon #2: oh, the paper! Just think of the trees! Won’t somebody think of the trees! Director Icon #1: No trees die on laptops…I have shirts brighter than you. Director Icon #2: Ah . . . but we must address the economic disparities that threaten our activity, as represented by our capitalist accessories! Ism, ism, ism! Director Icon #3: the trees sing Director Icon #2: Have you heard their new CD? Grumpy Critic needs more coffee, and kind of likes overviews. Underview: The random, wholistic stuff I am a story person (maybe it’s the theater background). I absolutely need a good story to vote for any position – this is ideally what those final rebuttals are for, when you magically distill the 1,017 little points on my flow into some cohesive whole. I can’t vote for what I don’t understand. Therefore, if you want me to vote on something, it’s going to need some explanation. When in doubt, go slower or explain the text, don’t assume I either know all the intricacies of your evidence or that I’m willing to decipher them for you later. More importantly, I will vote on the issues you prioritize for me in the round. Give me a paradigm; if you don’t, you may not want my default interpretations. I try to adhere to a judging policy of "do no harm" to debaters doing their best. There aren’t any arguments I "don’t" vote on outright. I vote on the best articulated reason in the best articulated paradigm. It’s best not to be overtly offensive in sexist, racist or other ways that may be viewed at least as socially unacceptable, but more problematically susceptible to a kritik. Besides, I just don’t like when people are mean. I will make you hug. Otherwise, as you should have gathered by your finally tuned critical reading skills by now, kritiks are okay, theory is okay, procedurals are okay, jokes, disads . . . heck, argue inherency for all I care. What you must do above all else is give me the warrants to vote for it, or how it applies to the round. Mostly, try to remember 2 things: 1) We’re here, and happily supported by higher education because it’s supposed to be about that education thing. I sorta believe in that. 2) At some point, this is supposed to be fun, however you define that word. Try not to look, be, or make anyone else miserable. 121 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kelly, Casey Topicality: It’s a voting issue and arguments like “no potential abuse” are unpersuasive. This topic is huge and I have no problem believing that limits are good. Predictability is the most important aspect of topicality. I am not, however, persuaded by the proliferation of specification arguments (except in cases where the affirmative refuses to clarify something important and cannot defend it or shifts later in the debate). Also, you must defend the plan. Someone has to protect the negative. Affirming abstract concepts does not count as a topical plan. Performance: The plan is still the focus of the debate. You don’t win because your performance was better. Speaker points are on another part of the ballot. Do what you want, but don’t expect to win because you “opened up space” or your protest was effective. I feel uncomfortable “activating my judge space” because not only are there constraints within the activity and I may not agree with your form of protest or what you are fighting for. I keep my personal politics outside of debate. I personally think it’s the worst venue for social protest and in many ways a disabling psuedo-activism. All arguments should be in defense of or in opposition to a plan or they are irrelevant. Because I realize that debate is changing, and people want to expand what debate means, I have to accept it. It’s not my cup of tea. However, I reluctantly, am willing (with much skepticism) to “alternative forms” of evidence. Be careful though, alternative forms of evidence are subject to the same requirements as evidence and I will be extremely critical. Critiques: I find a lot of link work with little emphasis on impacts or specific links. I vote on critiques if they are a reason why the plan and its justifications are bad ideas, not the just the 1AC performance. It must link to the approach and action the plan takes. Also, floating alternatives are problematic. If you are going to cp, then do so, but don’t make it hidden. Alternatives are subject to the same rules as counterplans, read that section to see how they will be evaluated (i.e. utopian alternatives). Alternatives usually get negatives into more trouble then they are worth. Your negative, you shouldn’t need one, but that’s up to you. Critiques have the same burden as other arguments. Broad, sweeping, generalizations should be avoided. Specific link and impact work is appreciated. On balance, however, my judging record might indicate that I am not a very good critique judge. That’s mostly due to the poor way most critiques are debated, and my inner policy leanings. However, critiques are winnable in front of me, so you do not have to strike me yet. Specific critiques debated strategically can be enjoyable. I judge the debates put in front of me as objectively as possible. CP’s: They are good, run them. As long as the negative can provide a basic justification for any CP, I err negative. Dispo is good, pics are good. Other things are debatable, it is hard being negative. I suppose I could envision a world where I may vote for theory, but it would take some serious work. Case debates: These are my favorite. I miss them. Nothing better than a negative that tries to roll big against another teams aff. Especially at the NDT, I will appreciate people who’ve done their research on another team’s aff. Cross-X: just speech time with different constraints. I pay attention. This is the place where good debaters can get above your standard 27.5 or 28. This is the place that separates average debaters 122 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet from the really extraordinary strategic thinkers. Many debates could be won here if people really tried hard. I reward people who effectively use this time. Evidence: This is important to me. I reward people who read good evidence. People read bad unqualified evidence all the time…even in their 1ac’s. It drives me nuts. You know who you are. I like qualified evidence. What makes good evidence? Qualifications, objectivity, peer-review, scholarly acceptance, the types of evidence and studies the author cites, reasoned warrants, clarity of argument, etc. I think that evidence from peerreviewed journals and books by respected authors should be preferred to cards from staff writers from Reuters (except in the case where the news sources has more authority, i.e., on uniqueness questions) or an obscure web site and blogs. If you make these arguments, I will be very receptive. 123 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kerr, Paul School: Catholic University This is mostly an old philosophy, but I suspect little has changed. Please keep in mind that I have only judged 4 rounds on this topic. I think debate ought to be about issues over which reasonable people can disagree. I'm willing to listen to lots of different arguments, but the list below should serve as a guide to my defaults when I'm left to my own devices. I tend to judge from a "least interventionist" standpoint, meaning that I try to vote for the team I have to do the least work for. Tell me how to weigh the evidence and impacts in the debate. The less you do this, the more work I have to do and the more I have to interject my own biases/defaults into the debate. I have frequently voted for bad arguments and bad evidence because the other team failed to answer it properly. I default to looking for the best policy option unless told otherwise. I like clash in debate and tend to evaluate the quality of arguments based on that... generic arguments that rely on bad evidence/debate spin are inferior to good case debates, for example. This applies to both the K and "policy" arguments. WEIGH IMPACTS. Case debate = good. FLOW: A couple of suggestions for making my life easier: 1) make the transitions between arguments clear - be sure to enunciate "And", "Next", "Also", or whatever your connecting word is; 2) slow down a bit for perms, T debates and theory blocks. THEORY: I think I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on theory. T= VI, judge. It's important for the NEG to be able to win debates. NOTE: I think T comes before everything else in the debate. K's of T are generally unpersuasive. I'll also vote on specification arguments, vagueness, fiat abuse, c/p and K theory args, etc. You need to have a theoretical basis for your interpretations of different theory issues and how they fit into the specific debate at hand (e.g. what's the threshold for proving abuse on topicality? What does that mean for debate in general?). Fairness, ground, and literature seem to be relevant to me. I think research burdens, pre-round prep, strategy skew, time skew, etc. are relevant considerations for T and theory debates - the AFF just saying "no unique abuse" doesn't cut it. COUNTERPLANS: I really don't have a set opinion on the legitimacy of Dispositionality, Conditionality, etc. I do think that the more the c/p resembles the plan, the harder it is to win. I've voted for and against PICS, agent c/ps, etc. DEFAULTS: perms have to be whole-plan inclusive and are tests of competition. Dispositionality means that perms and theory arguments allow the NEG to kick the c/p, otherwise they're stuck with it. DISADS: Disads = good. I think I have a fairly high standard for quality of link and internal link evidence on DA's. I will assign zero risk to a DA if you don't have a link or internal link. The same goes for your c/p solvency - you gotta have some. Teams that exploit solvency deficits to the c/p will be rewarded. KRITIKS: "So you don't vote for the K, right?" No. I have voted for it many times..just prior notice of my biases. Lots of K debate is bad because people get away with reading a lot of terrible evidence, relying on shared assumptions with critics about the argument, and using a bunch of contrived, self-serving theory arguments. The AFF - I have yet to be persuaded that any of the more recent (~ 5 years) innovations are better than policymaking, or that there is a meaningful difference. That said, critical advantages are great, but defend your course of action - I tend to find pleas to dismiss certain negative arguments (e.g. politics) as pretty arbitrary. The NEG. Kritiks = good NEG args when done right. Several times, I have found myself frequently ready to vote on the substance of the kritik, but voting AFF on theory. The most important thing is to explain the voting 124 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet issue. One thing the NEG needs to do is compare the solvency implications of the kritik (if there are any) with the AFF solvency evidence as much as possible. Defaults - I think perms are tests of the link. It's hard to win an in-round impact in front of me. I think the AFF has to be culpable, meaning that you have to have a link. It's easier for me to vote for kritiks with alternatives, but that doesn't mean you have to have one. Don't rely on phrases like "discursive impact", "ontological question", etc. I think the harms of the SQ are relevant things you need to account for somehow. Saying "we agree with the harms, but not your plan" doesn't mean the harms are somehow less important - you still need to explain why you win. Advocacy inclusive kritiks are highly suspect. Ditto for indictments of fiat. REBUTTALS: I try pretty hard to be a check on new 2ARs. The NEG needs to keep in mind that the longer s/he waits to compare evidence, explain arguments, etc., the more leeway the AFF gets in rebuttals to do the same. Also, 2AR needs to call the 2NR out on new arguments. If s/he does, I'll discount those too. Say why you win - in both the global sense and when extending specific arguments. EVIDENCE: Compare it as much as possible with the other team's (sources, prescriptive, descriptive, comparative, predictive etc.) I try really hard to reward teams who do this I also try really hard not to read cards unless you extend them by cite and explain their relevance. Don't cheat. 125 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kimball, Judd Article I. Communication Approach to Debate Section 1.01 The following are brief explanation of what I envision when I think of the highest quality debate. These are items that can factor in both positively and negatively for you in my determination of who did the better debating. (a) A primary goal should be to present your ideas and arguments in a communicative fashion. What factors influence the effectiveness of your communication? (i) Rate of Delivery. You should not present ideas at a rate that interferes with the effectiveness of sharing those ideas with another human being. You must analyze your audience to determine the rate at which they can absorb ideas, and you must evaluate (fairly) your own abilities to speak rapidly which not losing clarity/enunciation or normal tone inflection that signals the beginning and ending of sentences, and is critical to judges understanding concepts and ideas, not just individual words. (ii) Clarity/Enunciation. Each word should have a beginning and an ending. Each sound should be pronounced, and not mumbled through. (iii) Interpretation/Tonal inflection. It is a personal belief that the way we normally communicate with other people involves a lot of vocal interpretation and tonal inflection. It’s a way to communicate phrases and ideas, rather than just leaving each word hanging out by itself, merely surrounded by other words. With interpretation the audience has an easier time comprehending, understanding the processing the idea, as they don’t have to put the sentence together from the individual words, and then discover the meaning of the phrase or sentence themselves. Interpretation, by my definition, is the attribute of communication that helps provide understanding to the audience of the ideas being presented through the way the ideas are presented. It has been my experience that most debaters are very interpretative speakers when they are not debating from prepared scripts. It is during this time that the communication skills you have honed since you began talking are on display. Yet when it is time to read evidence, or a prepped theory block, they shift communicative gears and start just reading each individual word, rather than presenting ideas for the consideration of the judge. I am very unlikely to read evidence after the debate if it was not read in a comprehensible manner, or the warrants and reasons of the evidence were not discussed as being important ideas. (b) A primary focus of your speeches and cross-examination period should be information sharing. This goes beyond your personal motivation to communicate with the judges, and includes a responsibility to present your arguments in a fashion that facilitates your opponent’s comprehension of your position. (c) Clash. You should seek to create class in your debates by interacting with not only your opponent’s tag lines, but with the warrants for those claims. In essence, clash is explaining to me why I should prefer/believe your arguments over your opponents. In order to effectively do that, you must be making comparisons that take your opponents argument into account. You must clash. Section 1.02 Effective implementation of these points will most likely result in higher speaker points, and a greater understanding of your arguments by me as a judge. That will help you in winning the debate, as I will hold the other team responsible for answering your arguments, and if they fail toy, your superior communication will be a determining factor (as a process) of your victory. Article II. Debate Evaluation Section 2.01 I recognize objective standards and processes are probably impossible, as the subjective creeps into everything, I just desire and strive for objectivity. (a) I have a default judging perspective, which evaluates the net benefits of a policy proposal, and answers the question of whether the government should take a particular course of action. I prefer a framework which strives to include as many voices and perspectives as possible, and provides a framework in which different perspectives can be compared, contrasted and weighed. I like my decision to be grounded in the arguments made in the debate. I strive not to bring in “baggage” with me, though I recognize the final futility of that effort, and I will make every effort to explain my decision by reference what was actually communicated in the debate (b) If you wish the debate to be evaluated from an alternate perspective, you will need to provide a well-defined set of criteria for me to apply when evaluating and weighing arguments. The question of controversy needs to be defined, and discussed in order to provide me the necessary framework to avoid subjectively deciding the debate. Now mind you, I don’t mind subjectively deciding a debate, just be prepared to be frustrated by my statement that I can’t explain why I voted for a particular position, just that that was what I wanted to do at that moment of time, or 126 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet frustrated by the fact that what I voted on wasn’t an argument or part of the debate that you had a chance to answer. That will happen when I find myself stalled out in the decision making, finding no way to decide other than adding in factors that were not included or discussed in the debate. Section 2.02 I find questions of autonomous action and personal belief difficult to decide in the context of debate competition. I have found myself perplexed by arguments advanced on the basis of exercising personal autonomy, and then be expected to evaluate them without the inclusion of my opinions, my autonomy, in the process. This is difficult when I find that my personal approach to life contrasts with the approach to individual decision making advocated by one team. If the ballot is my endorsement of your idea, then I would be denying my own autonomous position by being constrained by debate conventions of judging (i.e., you did a better job against the opponents objections, but I wasn’t persuaded to change my personal beliefs). Defining your framework for debate evaluation with this in mind will ease my difficulty. I have been close to taking the action of including my position on the question, in the last few debates I’ve had when this situation arose. Questions of Autonomy and personal belief are difficult questions for me to resolve Section 2.03 I will be very resistant to deciding debates where the character of the participants is the foundation for the decision. I do not like to cast judgments on people and their behavior without having gathered as much information as is possible. I do not feel that in the high pressure competition of debate is the best forum for investigating those issues, or in seeking to engage the other individual in a dialogue about their behavior. Am I totally unwilling to decide a debate on such a question? I’m not willing to say that either. But I would have to be convinced that not only was this an egregious act, but that malevolent intent was involved. Article III. Other Issues: Section 3.01 Topicality I think topicality debates hinge on the question of whose interpretation provides for a better debate topic/experience. If your violation and argumentation does not provide an answer to that question, then figure the answer out. You must also be sure to be complete in your argumentation about why the affirmative violates your interpretation. Do not leave issues of plan interpretation vague, or hinge your argument on a vague cross ex question or answer. Make clear and concise arguments about why the affirmative plan doesn’t meet your interpretation. Section 3.02 Counterplans. I’ll evaluate any counterplan presented. I begin from a bias that "net benefits" is the most meaningful competition standard, and perhaps only standard. But you can argue other standards, and you only have to defeat your opponent’s arguments, not mine. As to other theory questions with counterplans, it will depend on who does the best job defending/indicting a particular theoretical practice used in the debate. Section 3.03 Kritiks I need to understand what you are saying from the beginning on all arguments, but especially these. Please communicate your ideas to me when you present this type of argument. I won’t go back later and try to figure out what you were arguing about. I need to know what the affirmative does that is bad, and why it is bad enough that I should either vote negative, or not affirmative, or however I should vote. Section 3.04 Debating and Evaluating Theory Issues. Theory issues are difficult to evaluate, because they are a yes/no question. If you wish to win a theory objection, you must deal with all of your opponent’s defenses, and provide reasoning explaining why a particular theory position is destructive to quality debate. This is not meant to scare you off of theory debates, just to encourage you to be thorough and complete when discussing this issue. 127 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kirk, Justin What I evaluate in a round consists of two things warranted arguments and evidence. I will usually ignore unwarranted arguments and discard unwarranted evidence. For affirmatives: you gotta have a stable advocacy, most likely this includes a plan text. For negatives: beat the affirmative. Debating within the affirmative framework is a choice I leave to you, but be warned that my tendency is to favor aff framework choice args. Although all plans should be topical there are a lot of them that are not. Being non-topical does not decide the debate round one way or another immediately, I believe the negative has to win persuasive arguments as to why this would be true. Evidence should be internally warranted and have relevance to the argument in question. Citations should reference the author's quals - if they have any - and I should be able to find your evidence immediately from the citation. I will read evidence that is critical to my decision in the debate and evidence that was contested in the round. Challenges to accuracy or authenticity of the evidence should be taken seriously on both sides, and if you are going to make a challenge, it needs to be warranted. Cross-ex is your time to make them look dumb. Try funny, sarcastic, quick-witted, and ironic. I don't always flow CX but I will make notes on things I hear that are relevant to the debate. Speaking and delivery are the two most important aspects of debate. They influence how I listen and hear arguments. This doesnt mean that I will give you more weight if you sound better, but my flow will be reflective of my interest. Flowing is not usually a problem for me unless clarity is for you. I don't dislike any particular arguments, just theory debates. This doesn't mean I won't listen and evaluate them, just that they are painful, like a drill, in my eye. Critical arguments are fine, just make sure they have some sort of a link. I like West Georgia, fake arguments, funny debaters , and four-sided time cubes. I dislike the geographic region known as Kansas and the NHL. 128 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kish, Gerald R., Ph.D. Florida I consider myself to be as close as possible to a strict Tabula Rasa judge. I view debate as a game that has some rules (role of the judge, speaking order, time limits, the resolution) but your in-round rhetoric (and behavior) creates most of the in-round rules. Tell me how to decide the round. Tell me what the voting issues are. Teams can argue anything. Critiques. RVI on T. You could argue that Troglodytes from the hollow earth will attack the USFG because we implement Kyoto. It's all-good. It's up to the other side to point why it's wrong, feeds another position, stupid, or abusive. Preferably with claim, data, & warrant. Extended standards and violations help. If a team doesn’t answer a bad or asserted argument, it’s their fault. I try to be a strict line by line flow judge. Consequently, you need to help my flow of your arguments. You should (1) number your arguments. I'm not happy with hearing one partner say "1st, next, next, next, next,” and the other say, "extend my partner's 9th & 27th responses". If you don't number it, I'm not going to number it for you. If the flow becomes muddled and confused, it's your responsibility; (2) don’t drop arguments. Duh! Of course but I will cut 2AR zero slack for arguments that 1AR drops. Same for 2NR in regard to 1NR. Once it's dropped, the argument is gone. I'll give very limited impact to cross-apps; If you do not answer an argument, even if answered elsewhere, I’ll give it to the other team (3) Provide a Decision Calculus. Provide me with a methodology to decide the round. If it's unclear, I use policy maker as a default option and if that doesn't work, then a stock issues judge; (3) clearly identify Winning arguments. Spell out what issues are winners. The easiest way to pick up my ballot is to have an argument that is identified as an independent voting issue and have your opponent's cold drop it & you extend it. You win. I don’t take a lot of time to make my decision. I always go for the easy way out. (4) Grouping arguments is cool but it does reduce the impact of the response. A grouped response only slightly diminishes the extension of a numbered argument. Performance: I have voted on in-round performance speech acts. I’ll listen to your quasi-social activism, & I have voted for them but I’ve voted against them more often, sometimes because of performative contradictions. I am very open to fairness & ground responses on these issues. Overviews: In the final rebuttals are not very important to me because they are not grounded in earlier speeches, you are better off going for the line-by-line. At the best, the overview should be very short. Topicality:” I will vote on it but given this topic and the fact that it is rarely extended past the 1NC,I haven’t voted on T. For the neg to win it, they need a better interpretation & that the aff does not meet that better interpretation. Critiques: To win a critique argument, tell me how it impacts the round. Frequently the internal link story is shady. Having the link being the federal government only is also shady. Uniqueness is important. If you perm the critique, you need to carefully explain the mechanics of the perm. Counter-Plans: They should be competitive. Dispositional or Conditional CPs is all right. It’s up to the aff to show why they are not ok. Net Benefits are important, meaning the aff needs to win an advantage or turn a disad or neg needs to win a disad. Evidence: In general, I don’t like to look at evidence; it opens the round up to my own intervention. I am likely to interpret the card differently than you do; this is truer if the card is over claimed. Therefore you should explain the importance of the evidence in the round. Also don’t clip cards. Don’t lie. Be careful when inviting judge intervention Cross-Ex: Potentially explosive but often a yawn when all that happens is asking for evidence. No problems with tag-team cross-ex. Decorum: Treat everybody with respect. Humor is much appreciated If you have any questions, just ask. 129 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Koehle, Joe My Experience: I debated for four years at Cathedral Prep while in High School, then debated for two years on the NDT circuit for the University of Pittsburgh. My feelings about judging debates are pretty simple. I will not try to inject my own personal opinions about arguments into the debate. Feel free to run whatever you’d like, and I will attempt to give it an impartial viewing. That being said, no one is really tabula rasa. There are arguments I do not like to hear (yet will still vote on), and arguments I like to hear. Below are my ramblings on various debate issues. TOPICALITY—I find myself voting on topicality a lot. I like T debates when done well. I default to viewing topicality rounds as a question of competing interpretations. I am open to some of the more critical objections to topicality, so if criticizing T is your thing, don’t be afraid to go for it. COUNTERPLANS—I love counterplans. They are sweet. The topicality or non-topicality of a counterplan doesn’t matter to me. I tend to default negative on most major theory arguments against counterplans, but as you get more extreme (i.e. utopian cp’s, individual fiat) I gain more sympathy for the aff. I am pretty tired of theory debates, however. I think too many teams are using it as the easy way out and refusing to engage in the substance of the debate. I hate adjudicating these rounds because everyone reads their theory frontlines as if they are just reading another piece of evidence. This causes me to have a shoddy/incomplete flow, which means you may be in for a surprise come decision time. DISADVANTAGES—I like disads too. Politics is something I get stuck working on every week, so I generally have a feel of what is going on with that debate. In general, controlling the uniqueness helps, but may not be enough to win you the debate. Sometimes I get the urge to say that there really is no risk of a link. CRITIQUES—These arguments are probably my favorite arguments in debate. They just interest me more than some of the other issues that we discuss. I prefer specific link work and some nice implication explanation. If you are being too vague in your explanation, don’t expect to win the debate. Affirmatives should not bother to make wrong forum arguments, I generally do not find them compelling. I don’t ever think that I have seen a criticism that takes out case 100%. You need to win that I should evaluate the round based upon your framework. General claims about “ontology comes first” will suffice only if you are debating a couple of jimmies. STYLE OF DELIVERY ISSUES: Speed is fine, but no longer impresses me. Clarity is what is crucial. If your style is to throw out everything and see what sticks, don’t expect better than a 27 from me. I could care less whether you stand up or sit down while speaking. Don’t ask me a thousand times if you can get a drink of water…of course you can. Be nice. I will not tolerate rudeness. Finally, language choices do matter. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning language. 130 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kraus, Alyse Catholic University Number of YEARS Judging: High School: 3 College: 1 Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic): High School: 1 College: 2 Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic): High School: 6 College: 13 PHILOSOPHY Who am I? I debated for 6 years total, 3 in high school and 3 at Liberty University. Things of General Importance: I think debate is a game. It is a very fun, highly educational, and pretty specialized game, but a game nonetheless. This means a couple of things to me. First and foremost it means that it should be fun for everyone. Very rarely are people having fun when they are being ridiculed or belittled so don’t do this to your opponents, partner, or judges. My considerable distaste for such practices will show up in your speaker points. Secondly, I think that, as a game, debate does not need to be taken too seriously. Too often people make debate about identity politics, individual feelings, and personal issues. I don’t think debate is the forum to address such things. These kinds of debates generally turn ugly, they aren’t much fun, and I don’t really like them. Finally, because debate is a game I think that there are certain constraints that need to be placed upon it in order to preserve it. For example, if there were no rules in basketball, every NBA game would look like a Trailblazers practice session (if you don’t know what that means, just take my word that it’s not a good thing). Similarly, if there were no constraints on debate, it would dissolve into an argumentative melee and I doubt anyone would enjoy it. Specifics: Topicality I think that the way I feel about topicality pretty much informs the way I feel about all theory arguments. It is the burden of the team leveling the charge of unfairness to provide offense (in other words, a team can beat theory arguments with defense in front of me). I particularly like it when debaters make important comparisons regarding questions like the *amount* of ground vs. the quality or predictability of that ground. I also think that affirmative teams who say the neg interpretation overlimits should be prepared to explain to me what ground beyond their aff the neg limits out and why that ground is particularly important. And lastly, topicality is not tantamount to genocide, racism, sexism, or any of the other horrible –isms that infect our society. It’s a legitimate request for the negative to ask the affirmative to be grounded in the topic we all agreed to debate about and so you won’t convince me that they are attempting to “silence your voice”. If your voice is non-topical it doesn’t belong in the 1AC. That said, negative teams needn’t think that any time an aff that’s blatantly non-topical is run they can just say “you’re not topical” and that will be sufficient for me to vote. I don’t like voting for non-topical affs, but if it comes down to that or a really horrendously argued T violation, I’ll pick the lesser of two evils. Theory What I said about T applies here. In addition to that: explain your interpretations, slow down some when making theory arguments (particularly sophisticated or complex ones) and, for heaven’s sake, don’t just read a block but try and make some analysis of your own – no two theory debates are alike, blocks will only get you so far. 131 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kritiks, Performance, etc. I like to think that I am a smart person. However, because I am smart does not mean I am intellectual. I do not read nearly as much intellectual literature as I should (unless ESPN.com counts) and so it is unsafe to assume that I know what you are talking about when you mention some highly complex philosophical term with 10 syllables and abundant references to obscure French terms for existence and being. Also, most highly complex philosophical arguments are something I just can’t understand at warp speed. Politics debates, yes. Post-structural IR theory, unlikely. Having told you that, I feel it is also fair to inform you that I rarely if ever ran critical arguments and that I enjoyed “policy” debate substantially more. However, this doesn’t mean that I won’t listen to these sorts of arguments. I think the beauty of debate is that there's a host of argumentative tools available to debaters. But, as I wrote early on, I think debate needs to have some restraints. This means that I think affirmatives need to be topical – be they “critical” or “traditional”. If you run an aff that outright does not deal with the resolution, I will be hoping to hear topicality in the 1NC. If you run an aff that deals with an issue related to the topic but refuses to defend the USFG, again, I’m waiting for the T violation. I believe in predictable ground above all else because I think it produces better debates. I think that critical arguments are fine when they are run well. Poorly explained or poorly executed strategies of any kind frustrate me and make me want to hit my head on my desk, which I won’t do but I will exact my revenge through speaker points. I have my own views about what kind of debate I most enjoy and prefer to hear but I generally try to let the debaters decide the framework for the debate. If the two teams can’t agree on the same framework, then it’s up to them to articulate their respective ideas and explain why they feel their model is best for the activity. However, I don’t much enjoy being told that voting or not voting a particular way makes me a bad person. As I said early on, I believe debate is a game above all else. Other points of interest My likes include: well-explained arguments, college football and basketball, ESPN.com’s Page 2, Vox vodka, John Cusack movies, cooking, smart strategies which I define as interesting and tricky arguments - things that make me go “hmm”, dry wines, drier humor, sleep, and people who can explain things to me without making me feel like a moron. I enjoy good, fast debates, but only as long as I can understand what you are saying. I’ll yell “clear” once if I can’t understand you, if you ignore me and don’t slow down then I’ll continue to flow but I’ll likely miss some arguments and will probably dock your speaker points. I also think that overviews, theory debates, the 2nr and 2ar, and any time you’re making a particularly complex or important argument are all good times to slow down a little. My dislikes include: stupidity, nonsense, celery, arrogance, people who steal prep-time because that holds up the tournament which ultimately deprives me of sleep, debaters who tell me to read cards after the debate rather than explaining them during a speech, people who send pictures of their family as Christmas cards, people who use the word “guestimate”, debates where no one really impacts or explains or warrants anything and I’m left to sort it all out which gives me a headache, and people who argue with me after I’ve made my decision. News flash – once the ballot has been signed, I’m not going to change it because you argue with me. You may ask me questions, but chances are if I didn’t vote for you it’s because you didn’t give me a reason to, not because I’m stupid. 132 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Kuswa, Kevin Richmond I like this topic and am excited to judge you. I value clear argumentaion, solid evidence, and holistic perspective. Ask questions if you have specific concerns. Kevin 133 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lacy, JP Wake Forest I am not a Tabula Rasa judge. I usually vote for the team advancing the better policy option. However, I also appreciate the need to “do what it takes” to win with the stuff you have in your box. Changing the question from “is the (topical) plan better than the status quo and a competing alternative?” is possible, but it does take hard work (or concession by the opposition) to overcome my predisposition. My flowing is bad. Its real bad. I do listen to the best of my abilities, but I’m old. Older than I look. My memory is bad too. My pen is probably the slowest on any panel you’ll encounter. I can hardly read my handwriting either. If you expect to win “on the flow,” do several things: 1. Front & backload your arguments. [Frontloading – That means put the most important words of your argument at the beginning, that way, following my first instinct, I’ll write them down.] [Backloading – I jot down your frontloaded tag, then listen…Backloading happens as the summary of an analytical sentence or paragraph or as an important part of a card] 2. Give me pen time. Wait for me to catch up. 3. Talk slow & be efficient. Ideas per minute on the flow is the true measure of speed. Talking slow can definitely up the “IPM on the flow” stat.” This is especially true when it comes to topicality & theory arguments. 4. Draw lines. If you absolutely have to try to win the round on a single line on the flow, direct me to the original argument by number, tag, cite & textual reference. Then say what your opponent said, why it was wrong, why your next speech beat their arguments, & why you win on the argument. I like to be able to summarize who won and why in one sentence. If I can’t come up with one for you, you are in trouble. I usually make up my mind quickly, within the first ten or fifteen minutes after the debate. Once I’ve made up my mind about who won, I spend the rest of my time arguing with myself until I'm comfortable making a decision. During that process, I try to give every argument in the debate as many "readings," or as much credit as I can. I do have a threshold for what counts as an argument: a claim with a good reason. "We turn the link because grass is green" is not a good reason, nor are glaringly illogical statements like "We win uniqueness so there can only be a link." Well-presented, well-reasoned & well-worded arguments count more than random spew. I rarely vote on cheap shots. I don’t even bother flowing most so-called “voting issues.” I take the time to rest my flowing hand. If your best negative strategy is “bottom of the docket is aff conditionality—voting issue,” please find another judge. Bad theory is a reason to reject an argument: if a team can’t win without that argument, they will lose, beyond that there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to vote because an argument is “out of bounds.” Tell me how to judge. This is priority one. The thing I’m most “tabula rasa” about is how to evaluate a debate. I defer first to the debater’s interpretation of how to decide. I start by resolving “framework” issues about the purpose of the debate and how I should decide the round. These issues should be well developed even when the “framework” is not in contention. The kind of policy judge you persuade me to be can have a drastic impact on the outcome. Tabula Rasa, Hypothesis Tester, Big Picture, Games Player, Critic of Argument, Truth Seeker, Link Dick, Neg Theory Hack, Bean Counter, Try or Die’er, Rescherist…All of these are ways to judge a “policy” round. Each of them can reach a completely different result given the exact same debate round. So, they should be treated as seriously as any other “framework” issue. I relying as much as I can on how debaters use evidence rather than the evidence itself. I can think of lots of interpretations of debate cards, many of them the exact opposite of each other. So, you should focus on how evidence should be read instead of getting me to read evidence. I will read cards. But, I want interpretive guidance. Cross-Examination is speech time. I pay attention (sometimes.) I write things down if they seem important: "Is the counter plan dispositional?" "What does dispositional mean?" and similar questions are important to me. I get bored when debaters waste their CX asking for evidence. 134 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Topicality: I will vote on it. It is a prior issue (see caveat in paragraph one.) Speak slowly when you debate it. To win, the negative needs a clear interpretation, that the affirmative doesn't meet, that is better than the affirmative's interpretation, and a good reason I should vote for the “better” interpretation. Pet peeve: 1nc’s who don’t read the text of their definitions. I can barely flow as is, need pen time, & really do want to listen to the content of your definition to see how it supports your interpretation. Specification: Its good. Agent specification aside, if you won’t specify other substantive parts of your plan, I will definitely be rooting against you. Counter plans: If the best policy includes the entire plan, I'll vote aff. To win, a counter plan must be net beneficial: better than the plan or a legitimate permutation. Legitimate permutations include the entire plan plus all or part of the counter plan and nothing else. International fiat and 50 state fiat are hard to win, but I've seen it happen. Important Quirk: I will probably call for the text of any permutation that I'm seriously considering. I usually need to read the plan and the CP. I'm often not certain what exactly the permutation is. Debaters talk fast. There is almost an hour from the end of 2AC until the end of the round. I have a bad memory. These factors make it difficult to determine the permutation's legitimacy or desirability. Exclusion counter plans: Nearly all exclusion counter plans are legitimate. Non-topical exclusions are even more legitimate. Whether or not the counter plan competes, or actually excludes something from the plan is a different question that you must resolve. Textuality is a useful starting point, but it does not settle the issue: A counter plan that adds "never" to the plan is not textually competitive even though it excludes the entirety of the plan. A counterplan that crosses out “in the US” from the plan is textually competitive, but fails the functional do both test. Functional competition is a more useful measure of “exclusion.” Dispositionality/Conditionality: My default for any counter plan is to vote for permutations when they are the best policy available, and to vote negative if the status quo is the best policy. See paragraph one: is the plan better than the status quo and a competitive alternative? Proof that a counterplan is worse than the plan cannot logically answer that question. (This means judge conditionality is in effect until overridden by the debaters.) If you want to make a different deal, like "We can't kick it if its straight turned; it vanishes if we concede a permutation, & if the 2nr goes for it but loses it, they lose" you can, but you need to be absolutely explicit about it. Kritiks: To vote negative, I need something to hang my hat on. If you speak only in abstracts, I will probably abstract a way to vote on the affirmative's "permutation" arguments. Lately, I’ve been implementing the “judge able to explain” test: If I am incapable of explaining your argument, I won’t vote on it. I honestly can’t bring myself to look a team in the face and say “I don’t understand this argument, but I think you lost on it, whatever it was.” I will try as hard as I can to understand your arguments, but if the “decision deadline” is anywhere close and I still can’t figure out what you meant, you are going to lose. This is obviously arbitrary, so err on the safe side and keep your arguments simple. I'm "Old School" when it comes to kritiks: If the affirmative can come up with a reason to vote for the plan by the end of the round, I will vote affirmative. I am most persuaded by kritiks defended as exclusive or preclusive of the affirmative plan. I still believe that the negative has the burden to rejoin the plan. From this perspective, "permutations" are very important: If the negative's perspective, or "alternative," justifies or fails to address the plan, I will usually (want to) vote affirmative. If the negative's perspective leaves the affirmative without warrant, I will vote negative. I don't understand most "fiat is an illusion" arguments. Every time someone says "fiat is an illusion," it reminds me of Doug Henning's World of Magic: "What is real, and what is…illusion?" These arguments usually amount to utter nonsense like: "Don't weigh the affirmative advantages, the kritik is pre-fiat. Weigh their advocacy first. Vote on inround impacts." It doesn't seem possible to examine the language the aff uses to explain why the plan should happen without considering the policy reasons they give. Examining that language, or that thinking, is considering policy. Fiat and "discourse" are two sides of the same coin: what you speak of is how you speak. Good kritiks make the plan indefensible even to a decision-maker with the actual power to adopt the plan. The force of logically prior arguments cannot be ignored. A construction of reality that is wrong enough to justify voting negative renders policy reasons irrelevant, incoherent or immoral. Many "fiat illusory" arguments are really just ways for the negative to conjure even more fiat than has ever been imagined: "Reject the state, fiat is an illusion" sounds like a veiled 135 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet anarchy counter plan to me. Occasionally, the affirmative falls for the trick by failing to challenge the negative's framework, or worse, making terrible "wrong forum" arguments. "New School critiques," of the "we advocate the affirmative minus their objectionable speech act" variety can (at times) be persuasive as well. Too many affirmatives leave the negative's framework un-addressed in these debates, assuming that I will simply adopt a "plan focus" despite the negative's arguments. For veracity's sake, I've only been persuaded by "speech act focus" arguments a few times. Those were times when the affirmative had no meaningful response to the negative's framework, or when I determined the "speech act" to be extremely important. If your kritik includes multiple layers of reasons to vote (policy, old school case take-out/turn, value, thinking, rhetoric/speech act) you are more likely to win. Please refer to the first paragraph: you can “change the subject” if your reasons for doing so are well warranted and/or poorly debated by the opposition. If there are any other questions you can reference my blog: jplacy.blogspot..com ps: These are all defaults, nothing more. Nothing here is set in stone except for the part about flowing. 136 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lancaster, Michelle JMU Things to Know 1. I read cards, but prefer not to. I tend to view myself as pretty non-interventionist – I’m not going to make the next logical step in your argument FOR you. This also means you shouldn’t expect me to realize that 10 second blip argument was what you were going to win the round on – if its important, you should probably somehow denote to me its important, how its important, and so on. 2. I think framework debates are important in K rounds. Just because you called it a critique doesn’t explain to me how it functions in the round – your job. I tend to think “aff gets to pick the framework” arguments are sort of whiny and silly, but have voted for them. Most negatives don’t get that if you’re going to have to defend your alternaframework, you should make it offensive, ie even if they get to pick, you still get to impact turn it and explain your K in that world. An important note – args like ‘fairness’ make my throw up a little bit in a my mouth, plus, it means nothing. I don’t think you get any ‘set’ ground other than saying that the res is wrong – ie built in ground, like sanctions are bad, engaging china bad, etc etc. If, for example, the AFF is saying pressure is bad, then you got a gripe. However, I have been persuaded that other ground is important, but I really dislike and will therefore resist voting neg because you felt like you didn’t have your insert DA/K name here ground and want to bitch about it. 3. I am really sick and tired of framework debates. #2 is there so you can figure out how I’ll evaluate it if you choose that route. But seriously. 4. This is only the second tournament I’ve judged at this year. I’m not coaching anymore and I’m not cutting any cards. Frankly, I can’t see that really mattering a lot, these debates aren’t exactly ‘new’ but keep it in mind. 5. This means your T debates may take some more work. It’s the great equalizer – and people don’t use it enough. 6. I am not a K “hack” wtf ever that means. Yeah, that’s what I ran, but most of you don’t even remember that. I’ve judged damn near everything and I coached at Mason. 7. I still find that I hate writing judge philosophies because I think the debate round is yours to do with it what you will. It’s the other teams job to answer what you’re doing, whatever it is. Its just a game of warrants and impacts. I vote for the team that wraps things up the neatest – that means I’m pretty flow centric and I’m going to resist imposing my worldview upon your game. I had fun, my time is done, “down here, down here its OUR time.” Bonus points for knowing the movie. 8. It’s supposed to be fun. Enjoy it – if I’m unhappy because you’re rude, you’ll be able to see it on my face and in your speaker points later. Jokes and humor is good – hell, I don’t really even mind if you make fun of me, as long as its fun. Tread lightly. 137 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lavelle, Katie As a critic, I try to evaluate the round based on the arguments on the flow. I will read few cards after the round because I want you all to explain the warrants in your evidence and make assessments that justify voting for you. For me, a good debate round has clash that is recognized by both teams. In the last two speeches, each team needs to give a concise overview explaining their framework for the round. You need to write my ballot with a decision calculus explaining how the major arguments in the round interact. Debate in general – I was raised a policymaker and because of that, I like clash in debates. I want the affirmative to present a case that identifies a problem. I think the affirmative case should affirm the resolution. For the negative, I’m pretty comfortable with a wide variety of strategies. For counterplans, I think that you should to discuss solvency deficits between the counterplan and case. It can be frustrating as a judge if debaters don’t explain how a CP works or what the net benefits are. A short overview in the block can be a good place to provide this explanation. On disads, make sure that you set up the impact story. I appreciate good impact assessment; please talk about the probability o fit, the time frame, etc. For topicality, a good debate here is specific. Specify what type and where abuse takes place. Make comparisons between standards. Explain what the grounds are for voting for T; don’t just assume T is a voter because it is topicality. For kritiks, if you ask any of my former debaters, they will tell you I hate kritiks. I have a hard time voting for a kritik that isn’t well explained. And I think it’s harder to have a good kritik debate because the source material is more difficult to understand than typical policy debate sources. Given this, I appreciate it when debaters slow down a little bit on these positions in the block. More explanation and fewer cards help to set up how the kritik fits into the round. I like it when debaters have specific kritik links. Tell me why the affirmative or negative links to the position. Tell me what am I voting for if I vote for the position? Explain what your alternative is, explain what rejection gets me. Whatever strategy you take, just be specific. Performance debate – I don’t feel comfortable adjudicating a round where someone shows a movie or plays music and tells me that I need to evaluate their performance. I know that these forms of expression are valid arguments, but for me, in a policy debate round, I’m not a good judge for these types of rounds. Theory – I am not a big fan of theory. But if you go for it, like topicality, be specific on abuse, compare standards, and explain why this issue is so important that I have to disregard all of the other arguments in the round. In Round Behavior – Over the years, I’m becoming increasingly intolerant of rude debaters. Please be polite to your opponents, your coaches, me, and anyone else in the room. I am not impressed by grandstanding in cross-ex or using expletives to make me believe that your evidence is good. If your impact is *$%#ing phenomenal, tell me why. Also, there’s no need to be overly aggressive or be a bully. If you intend to use this approach to debate for the entirety of the round, don’t be surprised if I intend to remember that approach when filling out speaker points. Speed –Speed is ok, but please be sure to read at a clear and comprehendible rate. I’m unlikely to vote on arguments not on my flow. 138 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lee, Ed I am a very flexible critic. Win a link and explain why the impact is more important than what the other team is winning. This holds true regardless of what artificial box we decide to place the argument in - harms, critiques, disads, and theory. Topicality I consider topicality to be a discussion about the best way to interpret the resolution so that we create the fairest debates possible. I think about topicality the same way I think about a plan vs. counterplan debate. Each side needs to explicitly discuss the benefits of their interpretation that can not be co-opted by the counter interpretation. Counterplans Solve for the case harms and win a disad. It sounds like a decent strategy to me. Affirmative needs to offensive in this debate. It is more likely that I will vote on a disad to the counterplan than theory. Don't take that to mean that you can't win the counterplan theory debate in front of me. I think this statement stems from the difficulties I some times have flowing quick blippy theory arguments. Not only are grounded claims easier to flow but they make better arguments. The best affirmative theory arguments use the negative’s stance to justify a set of affirmative offensive arguments. I operate under the assumption that the negative must make a choice between advocating the status quo and or the counterplan(s) in the 2NR. I think that it is your argumentative responsibility to stabilize your position of inquiry. Disadvantages I do not believe in the risk of a link. One must first win a link and risk assessments are made when evaluating the probability of the impacts. Critiques What is the link and why is it more important than the affirmative? Why does it doom the entire affirmative's project (plan) just because one piece of evidence uses “nuclear”? The affirmative should force the negative to articulate how the criticism interacts with the 1AC and why it is wholly cooptive. The negative needs to be explicit about the opportunity costs of not voting for the criticism. At times, I am at a lost for what the impact is to the criticism even after the 2NR. Affirmative needs to be more offensive at the impact level of these debates. Unlike disads, I think that the negative has an advantage at the link level of this debate. The most persuasive 2ACs have been those who turned the alternative, counter-critiqued, and been generally offensive. Speaker points CX should be used for more than gathering cards and talking about tidbits of nothingness. CX is a powerful tool that can be used to setup future arguments and provide the critic with a filter for evaluating the debate. I listen to CX. My average speaker points are between 26-27. 28 is reserved for those performances that "wow" me. These debaters are usually able to make my decision easy even when there are no conceded voting issues. Arguments no longer exist as disparate, isolated blocks on a sheet of paper but live and interact. 28s are able to competently discuss argument relationships and consistently make link and impact comparisons. 29s are performances of brilliance. It is a presentation that allows me to forget that I am judging a debate round. The presenter is on and everyone knows it. I think that it is a measurement of near-perfection that I reserve for only the most amazing speeches. A 30 allows me to temporarily forget that another speech in the round was worthy of a 28 or 29. 139 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Leek, Jayson I haven’t judged enough college debate rounds to really have a list of a hundred pet peeves that everyone should avoid. I am not aware of any predilections I have toward one type of argumentation or another. I like clash. I like to watch debates where it is obvious that both teams are listening to each other’s arguments, analyzing them, breaking them down, contextualizing them, and pulling them back together into coherent schemes that write my ballot for me. On nearly every type of argument, from disadvantages to topicality to critiques to theory, I am of the opinion that defensive arguments can sometimes be winners if there truly is no link or no impact. The most important thing if you want to get me to vote neg on T, or vote on theory at all, is to contextualize abuse claims and provide lots of examples. On substantive questions, I like lots of impact analysis and storytelling and it can’t start too early. Critiques are fine, but I prefer critiques that have links and impacts that are relevant in some way to what the other side is saying. I generally orient myself to the flow, but I will evaluate the round in any way you ask me to if I am provided with compelling reasons to do so. Straight up hard nosed policy debate is fine too, but I prefer debates where I don’t have to read 200 pieces of evidence after the round just to determine some mundane question like whether oil prices are on the way up or on the way down. I put a lot of responsibility on the debaters to hash questions like this out during the round. I will read cards, but I would like to know why I am reading them and what I am looking for in them before I end up with a pile three feet deep sitting in front of me. And if I am reading cards after the round they better be real good cards and not some two sentence garbage from the letters to the editor section of the Sacramento Bee. And while the line by line is important don’t be surprised when I don’t pull the trigger on the dropped voter blip from the 2NC number 7 on the 2AC number 8 subpoint C. I would rather focus on issues of substantial contention within the round. In the end I like debate because I like to watch people engage in strategic intellectual battles in creative, spontaneous, and thought-provoking ways. Debate is fun most of the time, but I bore easily and I get real mad when people aren’t respectful to each other. So keep me interested and pretend like you like each other and I frankly don’t give a damn what you talk about or how you talk about it. 140 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Leeper, Karla Baylor A debate round is a site for students to test ideas, research skills, critical thinking skills, and speaking skills against each other with feedback from a committed educator. This view of debate informs my judging in the following ways: 1. Topicality is important to create a site that provides some stasis or opportunity for clash. Clashing ideas are important to provide an opportunity for students to test each other's ideas. 2. Debaters should attempt to prove to me why their ideas are better than the other team's. I do not believe that I simulate Congress at the end of a debate, nor do I believe that the actions taken by any given judge in any given debate have larger implications for social movements. I believe that I am serving as an educator who can offer feedback to debaters on their argumentation, speaking and research skills. My favorite debates center around a clash over case arguments, disadvantages and maybe a counterplan. Debaters should evaluate their opponent's evidence and reasoning as a way to demonstrate that their ideas should be preferred. There are a number of types of evidence and reasoning. Debaters should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each. The assumptions behind ideas may also be tested, but will be subject to similar argumentative tests. It is incumbent on each team to demonstrate to me why their arguments are reasons to prefer them. Comparative analysis of evidence, advantages, links, impacts, interpretation and alternatives is the most crucial part of the debate. 3. I have not voted on theory yet this year. I believe that theoretical arguments should be held to the same standards of argumentative development as any other argument. Students must talk about the consequences of their interpretation of the rules of the game for the debate and for the debaters. Most don't do that well. If I have dispositions, I tend to lean toward the affirmative on most theoretical questions. 4. You get good points from me by demonstrating that you are making good arguments. You get bad points for using poor argumentation skills, being rude, being disorganized, or being incomprehensible. 141 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Leong, Andrew I have judged very few rounds this year. I have done ZERO research work on this topic. Personal Idiosyncrasies (non-exhaustive listing): I was never a good flow, and after one-year of dormancy, am terrible at it. Also, monotonic presentations cause me to lose concentration and fall asleep (a survival reflex that I have not found a way to circumvent). Thus, you can secure an advantage over the other team that isn't reading this right now by a) raising your voice, or otherwise marking in tone significant, round-deciding arguments, b) grouping large portions of the flow and referencing by argument theme or phrase (my numbers are never right, and I often skip from 3 to 6 for not apparent reason), c) saying "Andrew, please flow this" when you suspect that I am "tuned into the mothership," c1) in case of 'c,' go on to a more interesting argument than 'no text to alternative = VI.' Topicality for Plans: I like topical plans. I find field-contextual evidence that illustrates the plan's topicality to be very persuasive. Since lexicographers construct their definitions based on surveys and approximate sampling of common usage, I find primary demonstrations of common usage more persuasive than convoluted interpretations from secondary derivations. For both sides, I tend to find "limits" arguments to be more persuasive than arguments about "ground." The affirmative generally wins if the affirmative proves that the negative's interpretation is so arbitrary as to justify any interpretation. In that circumstance, I usually don't care if the negative has "offense" against the affirmative's interpretation. Topicality for *s: I also like *s. In the case of non-topical [*s] I tend to weigh the benefits of the *s resistance to or rejection of topicality versus the damage done to the negative via *s resistance. This means that if the reason for *s resistance to T is that you like ice cream and want to talk about it, this is unlikely to outweigh the fact that you've wasted two hours of the negative's lives. If the affirmative proves that resistance to T is necessary to combat a societal injustice, raise awareness about a communal harm, etc. and the negative cannot articulate a reason why abstract competitive equity or fairness concerns trump the specific harms identified by the affirmative, then the negative, well, has a problem. Negating *s: Do whatever the **** you want. It's not like the aff's going to have credible arguments about establishing community norms against your ****. If * is a dumb idea, and also non-topical, I tend to prefer it when negative's just say * is a dumb idea instead of walking into 9 minutes of 1AC attacks against topicality. If I wanted to see large hunks of brainless meat grinding into each other, I'd watch ________, (but I don't). Specification: I tend to believe this is not an a priori voting issue. Lack of specification can be used to illustrate critique links (instantaneous reification link), justify shady counter-plans, enhance solvency attacks (they have no idea what would happen if they did the plan), etc. Counterplans: Their disposition, use of -al fiat, etc. are rarely a priori voting issues. I am more persuaded by arguments that the counterplan's disposition or improper use of fiat justify reciprocal kinds of permutations. Critiques: You should assume that I have no knowledge or understanding of critique authors that start with the following letters of the alphabet A-Z (especially Z). When the passive voice is used to "enhance" a circuitous writing style that intends to elongate phrases with multiple "scare-quotes" to an intellectually impressive length, frustration and dangling modifiers are the inevitable result. Also, why start your speech with a rhetorical question about something completely obvious? Construct links by citing specific phrases within affirmative evidence or cross-ex's - general allusions rarely persuade me. I have no idea what it means to compare the affirmative's "postfiat" impacts against critique impacts. It makes more sense for me to weigh something like the impact of my endorsement of governmental inaction in the face of genocide/environmental destruction/impending nuclear conflict versus the impact of my endorsement of a framework that justifies annihilation of the Other, tyranny, genocide etc. 142 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Louden, Allan Wake Forest The ideological schism regarding debate evaluation have predictability left the community more open to new practice and divided. The search for evaluative standards of commensurability remains an open question. I imagine I am more accommodating than generally assumed to the “quashed voices” and “alternative conversations.” Rhetoricians start with the presumption that communicative acts operate on many levels and that symbolic constructions are every bit a real as war risks Yet I seldom hear performance and critical perspective fully debated. It is fair to say, however, that I have policy making tendencies. I find an internal logic for many innovative arguments, yet it seems that too often they do not provide the opponent any ground. That violates my fairness antenna. The opponent must have ground--not be defined out of existence—or the very notion of “debate” is meaningless. I vote for the narrative the makes the most sense in worlds that can be compared. Absent agreed suspensions of reality, in rounds I end-up adding-up a consistent position for each team. Even in theory laden rounds it seems my default is less a game theory than policy comparisons of reality based arguments. I admit getting lost in the detail of theory rounds and most often see it as strategic maneuvers rather than a voter. My perspective is that teams, knowingly or unknowingly, provide a narrative of a course of action. When evaluating I try to fit the parts together in some kind of reasoned whole. For me the minutia of line-by-line argument is not as important as the overall explanation within which the sub-claims take place. It is impossible for a critic to achieve the objectivity of a computer and a dangerous illusion to think we can. Functionally, an argument only becomes an argument when it is explained and placed into a context. Practical biases: Bias 1: C-plans can be topical but must be competitive--net-benefits the operational standard applied. PICs that allow a productive comparison are fine. Bias 2: Critiques sometimes fail to provide a reason to rejection of the opponent that is not patently self-righteous. The power of licensing the judge to “make a statement” also invites my personal intervention into what is “worthy” of consideration. Bias 3: The affirmative has the presumptive ability to define the policy context in which the debate will be considered (e.g., comparable/compatible levels of abstraction for agents, political arenas, etc) but can obviously cede this ground in answering CPs/critiques. Bias 4: The plan and not the resolution is the locus of choice. Bias 5: Disadvantages must meet a threshold of probability before they are weighed. Decision makers do not act or fail to act on consequences which although "possible" are highly "improbable." Bias 6: Argumentative fairness determines legitimacy of new positions and inventive interpretations in rebuttals. New constructions are "fair" when they can be reasonably anticipated or directly respond to the opposition’s strategic choices. Topicality: I have heard fairly compelling T arguments this year, but most few have been prusued. Style: A fundamental element in models of persuasion is comprehension. omprehension for me is not so much a matter of speed but rather one of explanation. Take the time to state the thesis of positions you take in the debate. It is safe to assume I am less informed than you are on any given issue, but less safe to assume a lack of common sense. Quality explanations that make sense are worth much more than additional cards repeating a given argument or filler arguments. For those in doubt that clarity, explanation and weighing matter, note that virtually every philosophy at CEDA and the NDT plead for communicative proficiency. I read little evidence after the round. Make it clear the first time. I believe cross-examination is one of the most underestimated and best opportunities. C-X can easily direct the flow of a round and "expose" absurd positions. Teams which view C-X as little more than "prep-time," use the time for gathering evidence, or systematically refuse to seriously ask or answer questions are forgoing a golden opportunity to add many minutes to their argumentative force in a round. Ground can be gained in asking and answering questions. Arguments in C-X are part of the round’s calculus. 143 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lupo, Jon Paul Emory University How I judge a debate: I will do my best to resolve a debate based on what arguments are made in the round. I actively try to ignore whatever biases I may have for or against a particular argument. I place the burden on the debaters to compare the impacts and implications of their arguments. A bad explanation of a bad impact will be privledged over a good impact without explanation. Arguments need to have an explained link and impact for them to be complete. It is not sufficient to label something “the biggest impact”, you must explain why this claim is true. Evidence plays a significant role in my evaluations of arguments. Basically it is important to me that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Don’t let that discourage you from making unevidenced arguments, but in a world of equal explanation of arguments I will prefer claims with evidence supporting them. The best way to win my ballot is to frame the way in which you want me to evaluate the debate. The team that most effectively does this will ussually win my ballot. Having said all this it is impossible for me to prevent my biases from playing some role in my decision, so keep reading to find out more. Caveat: I am an opinionated person and the section below will tell you my biases in their most extreme form, I will vote for you and against my biases if you win on the flow, but it is likely I will sympathize more with the other team’s arguments and will lean towards my biases in close debates. Fiat: You must tell me what role you think fiat plays in the debate to win my ballot. Obviously if there is clear agreement by both teams (via their arguments) on the role of fiat don’t worry. Absent that, this question is central to every evaluation of a debate of a critical/activist/performative nature. I believe that fiat is good. Discussing the implications of implementing the plan is the best model for debate, provides the best education and ensures adaquate ground and clash. Also, the Aff should always read and defend their plan. The Agent explosion: I hate ASPEC, OSPEC, and every other SPEC. These arguments are bad, and my bias is against these args is even more extreme given the small size of this topic. Seriously people, if you want to debate substance on this topic it is easy to get ready. CP theory: I don’t have any issues with agent CPs. I think conditional counterplans are bad, but dispositional CPs (where the aff has the option to stick the neg with the CP) are okay. I think functional competition is slightly better than textual competition, but I can easily be convinced otherwise. Presumption: is neg to start and shifts aff if the neg runs a CP or advocates an alternative to their K. K/Performance: My fiat blurb should cover this partially. You should also know that I believe the neg’s alternative should have a text and remain stable. I find link arguments to the plan to be better than links to the “system”, and if the aff wins that fiat is good, the neg will most likely loose on the aff outwieghs. Speed: Feel free to go as fast as you can be clear. However, it is hard to write down everything you say when you are reading your theory blocks and overviews at top speed. You should probably slow down a little for those parts of your speeches. Feel free to ask any other questions you have. 144 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Lyle, Jim Clarion I want to begin by saying a couple of things that will help frame the rest of my comments. First, I consider myself a “policy choice” judge. I like policy debate; I love policy debate. Don’t think I see nearly enough policy debate. Second, I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the policy focus, and educational focus of debate (these are reasons I debated and didn’t play baseball or something, okay baseball probably wasn’t a good 2 nd option.), but the thing I love the most is the competitive framework that this game provides (see baseball again). While I believe debate certainly has educational benefits that accrue by participating, I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments. Don’t get me wrong, I love doing research, love learning about the different topics, and want to see well developed, specific arguments, which are educational, but I am most concerned with maintaining these things within the context of framework that emphasizes the fairness of the game. Third, in light of the above, I love the fact that the rules aren’t all spelled out, working more as guidelines than rules. Everything, or most everything, is debatable in this activity, including the procedural considerations of the activity. Fourth, love that the game nature of debate allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills. With these initial comments in mind: Topicality: - It’s a voting issue (this is not debatable). Don’t think I’ve voted too many times on topicality so far this year, just haven’t seen too many good extensions of it. Explain your interpretation of the topic, explain how the aff violates it, explain why your interpretation is the best for debate as an activity, and why it’s a voter. Too many negative teams get caught up in the standards debate, and never really seem to develop their violations, or their interpretation of the topic. - Don’t like to hear real bad topicality arguments run to suck up time (for instance, please don’t run “throughout…in one or more of the areas:” means throughout the entirety of an area – all environmental protection) - No reverse voters on topicality. You couldn’t find a worse way to waste words. - Don’t like critique-type topicality answers, or at least have never voted on any such argument. - See topicality as a tool we use across debate to determine what the best interpretation of the resolution is. Topicality should be more than just another strategic tool we use in debate. Topicality is of fundamental importance to the fairness of the game, and should be used for that purpose. If topicality is to serve its purpose then we should strive for establishing a consistent interpretation of the meaning of the resolution across debates. If topicality is seen as more of a round-to-round thing, then the concept of topicality becomes devoid of functional meaning for the community. Fiat: - I like fiat. I think that fiat (in addition to topicality) is fundamental dimension of the game of the debate. Both work to help ensure a fair game for all players. Topicality tells us what can be debated, and fiat tells us how it can be debated. I think sometimes we have too limited a view of fiat and only see it as a tool for understanding the affirmative plan, which it certainly is, but we miss the way that fiat pervades the entirety of debate rounds. Fiat is what allows us to imagine the resolution to be actionable. It contextualizes the resolution to present day political realities, and allows us to understand the resolution in the context of current political, social, and economic problems. - Much like topicality, if we didn’t have fiat, the negative would always lose. Most, if not all, affirmatives could be defended in some abstract theoretical world detached from the current world we live in. Fiat is a tool of the negative to bring the affirmative back to present realities so that the negative has some ground to stand on and argue from. Fiat is used to understand all links, and solvency take outs, and turns, and plans and counterplans. Without fiat, the negative would have none of these options, at least not predictable ones. Imagine debate if the affirmative didn’t have to defend a policy choice contextual to the present politics and the contemporary political machinery 145 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet - I would definitely say that I view the affirmative and negative arguments through a lens of fiat. - Have been toying with the idea for the last few years that while voting affirmative means the judge would vote that Congress, or whatever relevant body, should adopt the plan, voting negative means the judge would have Congress vote against the plan (absent a counterplan). There seem to be several reasons why this would be a good approach to debate. There are also reasons that this might not be, or should be limited in some way. - Fiat is reciprocal. - Counterplans. Like ‘em. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that actng on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author, the negative pretty much has a right to anything. Conditionality and Dispo, are cool (doesn’t mean I accept them inherently). Critiques: - See fiat. - Based on the critiques I’ve seen this year, I’d say I’ve voted more on them when they are mishandled than when they are not by the affirmative. - Honestly, it would probably be best to slow down a little with some of the more complex critiques. My brain works a little slower in processing some of this information (examples, Decolonization – my mind can handle a full load, Psycho-Analysis – might want to let off the gas a little). - I think some critique arguments have great utility as solvency-type attacks, they can take-out or turn the solvency of a case. I think some of these arguments, run in conjunction with case-specific solvency attacks can be a useful way to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, affirmative solvency. - If the affirmative argues that the negative needs to defend a policy alternative, the negative can try to argue otherwise, but they better be prepared to defend some policy because I will likely be persuaded by the affirmative. Performance: - I like policy debate. I like evidence. I like speaking fast. I like the way debate allows us to play with all types of scenarios of action. I think these things help develop quick, critical thinking. I like the research skills that are developed. I also think that while policy debate has its weaknesses, the format offered by policy debate is the best for having a fair game. - Feel free to do/use performance, but do it within my framework for evaluating debate, or hope the opposition doesn’t push you on it. Odds are probably against a performance strategy for me. Speed: - Speed is fine/good. - Think too many debaters go a little too fast, think the improvement in clarity would far outweigh the number of lost arguments. - Wish people would slow down a bit on some of the more complex arguments/cards. - Wish people would slow down a bit when making the list of analyticals. Seems to me debaters would be well served to realize that carded arguments are a little easier to absorb due to the sheer number of words in a card – it affords time to write, the long list of analytical theory arguments, for instance, requires the judge to keep up with the number of words spoken at a much quicker rate. It is impossible to flow a 10 point PICs Good theory block in 10 seconds, at least not most effectively from the perspective of a debater who wants the judge to get as much info as possible. 146 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thoughts about speaker points (what I like to hear): While I have been thinking about the way speaker points are given, the recent edebate discussion has really caused me think about the way points are given (particularly by myself). I’m sure I’m guilty of raising speaker points due to emerging norms, although I believe I’ve always made an effort not to. I guess the thing I’ve realized is that I’ve never really thought about how I award speaker points, and have always just gone with a gut feeling based on the types of points I’ve seen for speeches given in my personal debate experiences. Well, I’ve thought about my use of speaker points a bit, and have decided what speaker points mean in my view. It seems to me that there are two important dimensions that I would like speaker points to represent. First, they obviously are an expression of how well the judge felt the speaker spoke, they are a measure of the presentational skills of the debaters. Presentational skills would be the way one uses words powerfully and efficiently, is organized, and etc. In my opinion, it seems speaker points should measure presentational skills as follows: 30 – Speeches were some of the best that will be heard on the topic, execution and efficiency were amazing. There aren’t probably more than a couple dozen or so performances during the course of the debate season (that number might be too high). Odds of me judgin’ a 30 are very slim. 29 – Not quite as good, but still pretty damn effective and powerful. A mistake here, a slightly undercovered/underexploited argument there. Explanations and impact/link analysis and comparisons are thorough and well stated. If this is you regularly, you should be debating with consistency and goin’ deep in the elims. You are super clear to listen to. 28 – Still good, and clearin’, but not closin’ as many doors, more undercovered arguments. Pretty good assessments and comparisons of arguments. Very easy to flow, very clear. Citing evidence to support key arguments regularly. 27 – Generally clear, but there are clarity issues. Startin’ to make high quality arguments in places, but still need to do more. Mishandle an issue more significantly, more undercovered arguments. Need to work on doin’ 2AR/NR impact assessments. Could be more thorough on explaining the link story and explaining how it relates to the turns. Etc. 26 – More disorganized. Unclear. Lesser efficiency with word selection. Not persuasive in presentation, seem like your goin’ through the motions. Not making many explanations of arguments, little substance to arguments. 25 – Need to do some serious work if you see this. Second, it seems to me that speaker points also should be an expression of how strong the strategy is in the mind of the judge. Research, preparation, block writing, practice debating, and etc, are important parts of the game. Teams that are prepared to debate, and have done good research versus (or for) a particular case, and have strategized should be rewarded for doing such. This pre-round work is what gives the speaker the ability to give a variety of presentations. Am I saying that I’ll give people higher points for cutting cards and writing blocks? No, what I am saying, however, is that a team that has a good strategy should be rewarded. Going out and doing research to beat a case is hard work, and while most people seem content with their generic strategies versus every case, I want to see well-developed strategies. I can’t stand the 8 offcase, solvency (which is a generic neg card or two) strategies (unless we’re talking topicality, a case specific counterplan, and several case specific disads). I like tighter more focused debates, from the start to the finish. Sure people want options, but how many do you need (and how many do you really have). Plus, all this seems suggest that it is more challenging, and daring, to go out and just tackle a case. In my ideal world, people wouldn’t run time suck arguments. Here is how I intend to award speaker points based on argument quality: (The maximum speaker points a strategy can get. Of course these are guidelines and can be adjusted as needed.) 30 – Odds that I’m in a round to judge where there’s a 30 are extremely low. Would have to be absolutely amazed by the speeches. Reserved for the best speeches of the year. For the negative, generally reserved for presumption strategies, the affirmative just doesn’t solve. Presumption is probably the most difficult strategy for the negative to run. (As should be obvious, I like solvency debates, and will vote on presumption.) I’m sure awesome execution of a supreme case specific strategy might warrant consideration as well. For the affirmative, they’d have to face an 147 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet awesome case specific strategy (i.e., solvency take-outs, case specific turns, case-specific disadvantages, maybe a counterplan). For the affirmative, it actually a little harder to predict what it would take. The aff certainly has to face a good strategy, but effectively disposing of negative junk can be a factor, the round-saving or round-ending 1AR can be a factor, etc. 29.5 – Case-specific counterplan, or Specific DA and solvency attacks. Wins on good theory arguments, but is also winning substantive arguments. Topicality (not sure I’d ever award a 30 on T, not sure why so maybe I would). 28.5 – Counterplan with some specific solvency, Generic DA and case attacks. 27.5 – Generic Agent Counterplan and other ultra-generic negative counterplans (no specific reasons why this agent is better with evidence contextual to the affirmative plan) with Generic net-benefit (i.e., Courts and Bush), Nonalternative critiques (critiques with alternatives considered as counterplans). 27 – Win with some really bad rgument that other team mishandles, and that’s the only real reason you won (the negative runs some real bad topicality violation, or an awful disadvantage, or agent specification, and the affirmative mishandles it; the affirmative wins on some bad theory argument or somethin’). So how will I integrate these two numbers into speaker point total? Add ‘em and divide by two (round up to the nearest .5, I guess that seems fair). Of course there are also ways that debaters can be punished through speaker point deductions. Things that could cost points: really bad arguments (ultra bad topicality arguments, agent specification, bad vagueness arguments, RVIs, and etc), contradictory argumentation (Debaters should be responsible and consistent in their arguments. Don’t think arguments can be advocated on different levels, not entitled to the “if you don’t think we win ‘x’ on this level, then you evaluate ‘y’ on this level.”), over-excessive tag team CX, “bites” the link, being an asshole, standing over a speaker’s shoulder while waiting to get the next card (if the opposition wanted you to read the evidence before they read it in the round, they would have given it to you), droppin’ lotsa unnecessary F-bombs (I understand we all get passionate, but there are some debaters who just need a little self-control), etc. Effective CX usage is a definite boost to the speaker point total. Too many teams just kinda blow CX off, and don’t come into CX with a planned strategy to get links and forced concessions. Additionally, many debaters don’t use the opportunity to answer questions to its fullest potential, and don’t really work to sell their arguments. 148 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Mancuso, Steve Miami of Ohio Things I am pretty sure of: 1. The affirmative does not have infinite prep time. 2. You will not "always win" your argument and it will not "always outweigh" their argument. 3. Al Gore should be President of the United States My theory predispositions: (although I routinely resolve debates differently) 1. The affirmative should present and defend a plan that reasonably falls under the resolution. 2. The negative should defend a course of action that is a reason to reject the affirmative plan. 3. The affirmative must defend the plan in its entirety - they must win that the good parts outweigh the bad. 4. The negative must defeat the plan in its entirety - they must win that the bad parts outweigh the good. 5. The affirmative agent only need be as specific as the agent in the resolution, and specific enough to infer solvency. 6. The reasonability of an argument is based on a number of factors including its prominance in the literature, its predictability and its relevance in actual public policy discourse. 7. Theory arguments should not fit on bumper stickers. Examples of failure: "It is not what they do it is what they justify." "Punish the argument not the team." "Voter for education and fairness." Ways to get good speaker points from me: 1. Care about the effectiveness of your communication. 2. Speak clearly, especially when you read your evidence. 3. Refrain from using profanity or bigoted langauge. 149 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Mannino, Piero This is my first year out. I debated 4 years at James Madison University, and now I’m an assistant coach at the University of Richmond. Nothing angers me more than judges that maintain the position that 'I will never vote on X type of argument'. I maintain that as a judge my role is to determine who won the debate and not decide what arguments should and should not have a place in the debate community. Yes, it's true, some arguments can be more persuasive than others. However, to contend that some arguments have absolutely no place in a debate round is antithetical to the nature of rational discourse and debate. With that said, I’m open to any argument as long as it’s warranted. Above all, I just want to hear some good debates with arguments that are well thought-out and defended. Don’t make me do the debating for you. I ultimately believe debate is a game, it should be educational and debaters should remain civil and friendly at all times. Topicality: I don’t really enjoy watching theory debates; they usually result in sloppy debates that are neither interesting nor very educational. With that said, I will vote on topicality if the NEG has an argument to be made. I tend to heir AFF on topicality simply because I believe in affirmative flexibility. However, if you’re NEG and you have a clear and concise (potential and/or in-round) abuse story, then by all means go for T if it’s your best option in the round. As far as AFF critiques of Topicality go, I don’t particularly find topicality to be genocidal, nor do I believe some great injustice will have been done to you should I choose to vote NEG. However, if you are AFF and you are winning this argument within the confines of the debate round I WILL VOTE ON IT. Peformance: There really isn't much I have to say here, I will listen to "performance" arguments and vote on them if you win them. With that said, I don't feel comfortable voting for arguments that were implicitly present in the round. Case in point; if you want to play a song, explain to me why the song has meaning in terms of the round or the ballot. Additionally, I think with these types of debates it's exceptionally important that teams engage in a debate over the framework or how I should evaluate the round. Kritiks: I dislike the apparent schism between 'traditional policy debate' and 'critical debate'. I believe both argumentative styles can be educational and more often than not, overlap in terms of how they impact policy making. I will admit that I do enjoy listening to good critical debates. As is the case with "performance" type arguments, I think a discussion over the framework is essential for a good K debate to occur. If you are NEG, run whatever you’re most comfortable with. As I’ve said, I’ll listen to any argument that is warranted. If you’re NEG; I don’t think you need an alternative, though it can help. We can rethink, we can reject, we can even dream…they all sound like plausible alternatives to voting AFF. Counterplans: I'll vote on them. Didn't run many counterplans while I was on the circuit, but you should run whatever strategy works best for you. PIC's are fine. I don’t mind if you’re counterplan is conditional. I tend to heir neg on theory because I believe in argumentative flexibility. With that said, I dislike performative contradictions and will most likely heir AFF on theory should the neg run a contradictory strategy. DA’s: I like to hear good impact debates, but a sweet link turn is always welcome. Whatever DA you choose to read, just make sure your link and impact stories are clear; I will not vote on “X will cause nuclear war” if you don’t give me a reason for why that would be bad or worse than the status quo. If by chance it hasn't sunk in yet, MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS WARRANTED!!! 150 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Matheson, Calum I believe that debate is an art form with many different styles, none necessarily better than the other. I attempt to evaluate these different styles by their own standards, rather than match all the debates I watch up to predetermined template to determine how close they are to what I would like to see. All types of debate can be done well; all types can be done poorly. Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. I try to judge debates as objectively as possible, but there are limits—two impacts that aren’t compared, for example, force me to make my own decisions, which may disappoint you. Debate however you like, and explain why I should evaluate the debate as you see it, and you should be able to avoid my intervention. Although I encourage you to debate however you want to, and I will try to judge as fairly as possible, all judges have preferences. These are mine, but keep in mind that they are all subject to change based on arguments that you make in the debate, and that none of my preferences are terribly strong. THEORY—I hate theory. I understand that you do what you have to do, but these debates bore the crap out of me, and I think that I am a worse evaluator of them than I am of other debates. Framework debates especially bore me, but I have voted for both sides of the argument. I think that offense is unnecessary when debating theory; it is good enough to prove that what you did was OK, and you don’t have to prove that what you did is good. I tend to lean toward the negative in counterplan and critique debates, and I tend to lean aff in topicality debates. I tend not to vote for framework arguments that policymaking is good/critiques are cheating, but I’ve seen few particularly good debates on the issue. CRITIQUES—I don’t know as much about these arguments as people seem to think I do. I’ve read Foucault, Heidegger, Marx, Spanos, a lot of Critical Race Theory, and a lot about theology, genocide, nonviolence, nuclearism, colonialism, and critical geography. I don’t know anything about Lacan, Zizek, Deleuze or Guattari. I am certainly receptive to these arguments, but one shouldn’t assume that I know what you are talking about unless you’ve made it quite clear. I think critiques don’t necessarily need alternatives, textual or otherwise, and think performative contradiction arguments are usually losers. THE HARD RIGHT—I like this stuff too. I’ve worked on/voted on nuclear Malthus, spark, rights Malthus, red spread, wipeout, prolif good, and so on. These arguments interest me, but I don’t think that I am a right-wing hack. (Kentucky—pay attention to this part) I think that in the end I am just bored by the sort of soft lukewarm center of debate, and that extremist arguments to both the right and left are a way of making debates more interesting. This is not to say I don’t enjoy a good disad and counterplan debate, just that I think that these debates are less frequently interesting. One’s goal is to win, however, so don’t be too worried about whether I’m bored. IMPACTS—This is the bottom line in all debates. You must win for a reason. Whatever you said has to matter. I decide every single debate I watch by comparing the risk and magnitude of one impact versus the same elements of another. If (Risk1 x Impact1) is greater than (Risk2 x Impact2) you win. If it is not, then you lose. This is true of theory debates, critical debates, and policy debates. Superior impact analysis almost always translates into winning, but this analysis requires depth—why does time frame matter; what is the risk of escalation of one war versus another; why does nuclear war outweigh conventional war; and under some circumstances, why do I care if everyone dies. Here are some things that are internal links, but not impacts in and of themselves: violence, exclusion, oppression, tyranny, silencing, “instability,” ground, fairness, education, debate itself, liberty, identity, biopower, AIDS, global warming, environmental collapse. Here are some things that are impacts: genocide, racism, heteroprejudice, war, nuclear war, gender discrimination, value-to-life. If you don’t impact the argument, I’m likely to decide that genocide outweighs everything else, and that tyranny is probably good. I’m not joking. RANDOM—I never yell “clear.” I believe that debate requires efficient communication, and that if you fail at this I get to totally ignore you. I simply don’t evaluate arguments that I don’t understand (i.e., don’t understand the words you’re saying). I don’t feel bad about this in the least. If you clip cards and someone catches you will lose and get single-digit points. I can’t flow terribly well, especially in theory debates, and my hearing isn’t all that good, so I value clarity, but I can still flow debates at any speed. I don’t usually read much evidence or take very long to decide. I have never thought about debate theory at all for any reason except when I was actually debating, so my opinions are not at all set in stone. That’s it. If you have any questions, please do feel free to ask me before a debate or at any other time. My email address is u.hrair@gmail.com. Have fun, and good luck. 151 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Maritato, Jimbo Marist I became involved in policy debate during my senior year at Marist College (2001-2002). In the following year I assistant coached for Marist alongside Max Schnurer and Andy Ellis, judging full commitments at nearly every tournament our squad went to. Over the last year I have moved to Wyoming to pursue my Master’s degree in Communications and have been coaching and traveling with the University of Wyoming policy squad. I believe I am a competent and well-informed judge. In my opinion the best debate rounds are those where the two teams in the round meet each other somewhere in the middle, find an element of clash, and hash it out in depth. I like well thought, well spoken, and passionate debates. I really love debates where the debaters actually care about the issues they speak about and not just the ballot. A few things you should know about me: 1. I like debate rounds that are fun despite the intense competition. Antagonism between teams does not get far with me. Don’t arbitrarily punk on other teams in speeches and don’t be a blatant jerk during cx. I won’t be impressed. 2. I fill out ballots based on what they ask: “Which team did the better job debating?” That means if you put out a policy option that you think “solves” better but debate your position poorly, I may vote in the other direction. 3. While I judge rounds on the basis of “who did the better job debating” I will admit that I can never be 100% objective in that assessment. Audience adaptation is a necessary skill for the real world applications of our activity. Debaters should be aware of the need to adapt to judges in order to better convince them. 4. I’ll vote on any argument that is well reasoned and well explained. I am K friendly, but that does not mean I will vote on any K. (ie. K’s must have specific impacts, must have a workable alternative). Well explained also means that jargon is explained. Heavily academic critiques should be able to illustrate a real world application of the K. I don’t really like to vote on procedurals but I will as long as there is an explanation of actual abuse in the round and there is an explained voting issue. I will not vote on abuse that does not occur in the round and I am less likely to vote on your education standard unless you tell me how education was affected in this round. 5. I like performance debates, but the fact that you perform is not enough to win the round. There has to be a substantial argument being made and it must be backed up and refuted consistently within the framework the performance sets up. Don’t ask me to vote because you read a poem at the top of the 1AC and then read cards for the next 8 and a half minutes. Your performance should bring something substantial to the round. Please feel free to ask me about my feelings on judging anytime you like - I am always moer than wiling to clarify. 152 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Marty, Jillian Number of Years Judging: 2 Number of Rounds Judge: 19 Who are you? I debated at the University of Vermont for 4 years and now I coach at the University of Alabama. Are you policy or critical? It depends on the round. If the debate comes down to a CP and a politx netbenefit, then I will evaluate it as a policy maker. If the debate comes down to Kritik versus case, I will evaluate the links and impacts of the K against that of the case. What happens when those worlds collide? I don’t know, I will leave that up to the debaters to hash out and which ever side makes more me sense to me that will be the side I vote for. In addition, I do evaluate kritiks against disads and I do believe that the negative/affirmative has to defend their framework or as some would say defend what they do. However, increasingly I am starting to believe that debate should be a dialogue. Does that mean I won't judge fast debates? No, I will judge any debate that I am in. I will flow and make a decision at the end of the round. I respect all teams and the styles they choose to deploy. I just ask if I am the judge in back of the room and one team is requesting a dialogue instead a fast spew down the other team respects that wish. On to the specifics Kritiks: Yea, Im cool wit those. However, just because I ran a lot of Kritiks when I debated does not mean that I understand all of them. So in order for you to get the ballot, the K like any other argument has to be well explained in order for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be a obvious link to the case, the alternative of the K must be well explained, and a warranted reason why the case can’t access the alternative would be good too. For affirmatives I believe the case should have specific link or impact turn evidence. Theory: Word to the wise answer the theory debate. I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. Also, I will vote on dropped theory arguments, like the perm is severance and I believe that even if the perm is a test, the affirmative has to answer the argument. I will also vote on other theory arguments too, like no text to the alternative and floating pics. Disadvantages: Win a link and a reason why you outweigh the plan and your game. Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to prefer outweigh But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments and not just blips. Although, I am a believer that affirmatives must have a plan text and defend the consequences of the plan BUT it is also debatable, so affirmatives if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences have reasons why you shouldn't have to defend those issues. Case Debate: yes those are good. Is there anything else I need to know? Well I tend to read a good amount of cards at the end of the debate. What can I say I like to read. Oh I do vote on the flow, but I can be persuaded to not flow at all. But there is a warning, if I do not flow or look at the flow then don’t be mad at my decision. If you got any other question before the debate -ask. 153 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Massey, Jackie Oklahoma My judging philosophy is based upon the positionality desired by the debaters in the round. I will flow if all want me to flow. I will also not flow if asked to not flow. The need to flow is debatable. I do not like bad politics debates, nor do I like bad critical debates. I would vote for an elections DA before a Political Capital DA. I prefer topic relevant kritiks, I do not believe any kritik will do. I only read the evidence discussed in the last rebuttals, and will not read your evidence if you do not talk about it. I prefer to see the important debates boxed out on the flow. I will give argument and evidence comparisons provided by the debaters more credibility than the conclusions I draw from my own comparisons after the debate. I expect the debaters to identify the critical turning points in the debate, and if you do not understand the other teams arguments, how you can you be beating the other teams arguments. Listening is important. 154 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Maurer, Sam Gonzaga I'll listen to about anything. I like good K's. they can introduce music, art, poetry, short stories, or whatever as evidence (and I treat it as such) but I really love a nice big throw down on politics and a counterplan, malthus, dedev., etc. This activity is yours, not mine; have fun and I'll come along for the ride. Now, things you should know about me regardless of where your style falls ideologically: 1. evidence - usually won't call for a lot of it. I'll try to give the most credit to arguments made by debaters, not your authors. However, this doesn't mean I WON'T read evidence, just that when I do, I should know what I'm looking for. Your final rebuttales should situate and frame evidence (yours and theirs) into particular functions. If I call for it after the round, it is to validate that function, not to extrapolate an argument. In other words, you won't often hear me say "i think warrant X in this evidence answers warrant Y in this evidence". Evidence doesn't speak, debaters do. as another caveat, prefer quality over quantity in evidence. big, warranted cards that make your case make last rebuttals easier and more persuasive; the cite-list, tagline, database-index model of last rebuttals is inneffective in front of me. 2. please don't engage in excessive "marking" of evidence during your speech - can understand some but keep it under control. 3. typically don't dig the spec's - but I have voted on them before if answer's aren't gettin it done. 4. be nice, but don't be afraid to talk shit (on me or your colleagues or your opponents). make debates fun, which often means doing both. 5. attaching the phrase "independent voter" to an argument doesn't make it valid. I'll vote on these types of arguments but only if they are an argument to begin with. 6. I really don't like consult counterplans. winning their theoretical legitimacy will be tough, but is not impossible if aff answers are booty. 155 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet McBride, Brian Kritiks: Lately, as in the past three tournaments, I seem to talking after debates about 1. the nonobviousness of a link, 2. the need for a narrower alternative, and 3. my requirement for examples, some kind of lifejacket to prevent me from drowning in the earlier cryptic theoretical moments. I seem to listen to negatives who read these sentences that have a subject which is supposed to be about the affirmative but in reality has very little to do with the affirmative. Even though getting links is supposed to be a relatively easy phenomenon, I often find that the relevance of the argument, it's impact and the way I negotiate through permutation debates depends on the link. I must admit that as long as the negative can defend that their AIK (aff inclusive kritik) or PIP (plan inclusive performance) or whatever acronym we’ll use, is a critical issue with regard to the topic or the affirmative, I can’t say I’ve heard a decent argument as to why the negative shouldn’t be allowed to advance these arguments. If debate can handle executive order CPs, then I think it can probably withstand negative’s who believe the plan is a good idea depending on the horse which leads us to it. In a nutshell, I don’t think the only “action” in an affirmative is their plan, affirmative’s act in the way that they choose to describe the world. However, I should reiterate that the negative does have to convince me of the importance of their AIK. I’m not too impressed by the minus-one-word arguments; that is, these arguments seem like problems with elements of the affirmative’s rhetorical artifact but not reasons to co-opt the entire affirmative in exclusion of said evil. Despite all this, I think I’ve developed a reputation for being a hard-sell within this genre, probably because of my particularities. I often think that affirmatives do a particularly generic job of answering these arguments; ignoring the specifics of the argument beneath the name; spending too much time extending defensive-style links turns or permutations, which don’t seem to matter much in comparison to the negative’s free-floating super-shiny alternative worldviewing. It doesn’t matter how many inroads the affirmative makes via their “no link” and “link turn” arguments as long as the negative gets to claim to support all-the-affirmative-minus or retains an alternative that is relatively uncontested. I think many affirmatives forget or choose not to defend the rhetorical moves made in their arguments: sometimes kritik debates seem to draw the affirmative too far away from other potentially relevant discursive slices of the affirmative pie. I do enjoy abstraction and wish negatives spent some time justifying their particular abstraction: why is it that the aff’s specific claims of solvency should be secondary to the need to drop back and analyze the patterns within their claims? I wish negatives attempted to historicize their arguments more and how affirmative-like solutions do have a particular history which demonstrates their argument. I also hope that negatives incorporate some discussions about the meaning of debate or its purpose, using arguments within the round as examples. Negatives need to use the affirmative as a rhetorical artifact (press release, condensed metaphor): if you don’t spend much time demonstrating how the affirmative is seeped in, a reflection of, symptomatic of – or whatever, you’ll probably struggling against my proclivities. 156 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Counter-plans: For starters, solvency deficits usually don’t amount to much, because they’re often un-impacted. For seconds, I’m not a fan of aff strategy that is predicated around going for theory as offense, unless of course it’s necessary. Counter-plans typically seem reasonable as determined by the quality of solvency evidence (resolution specific, topic area or plan). All planinclusive counter-plans don’t seem demonic, nor do all internationally fiated, nor do all multiple actor counterplans. For me, it’s more useful for aff’s to argue against particular kinds of PICs or fiat, etc. It will be hard to convince me that all are evil. For thirds, I don’t always believe in the notion that “any risk of the net benefit” means vote negative. If an affirmative can adequately extend a take-out, they can effectively defuse the net-benefit, but they have to defend their takeout as such or at least seem aware of what’s occurring. Lastly, I abhor debates where the what of the counter-plan is unclear. There’s no bigger waste of time when the judge(s) haven’t a clue what the counter-plan actually does until we get to glance at it after the debate. Topicality: Most of the time I defer to ground-based understandings of the topic. Typically, it’s not a question of whether the aff is or isn’t topical, it’s seem more relevant to think in terms of should they be. Negatives need to do more than assert that the aff’s intepretation produces too many debateable cases, they need some kind of proof. Affirmatives should remember why their interpretation of the topic still retains some sense of limits. Now maybe that has to do with the specific negative violation and maybe it doesn’t. Miscellaneous: I do enjoy solvency debates and debates about the case. It is strange to me that most negatives fail to point out glaring holes in the basic 1AC. You could probably convince me to vote against an affirmative because they have no solvency. What else can I say: I enjoy strong coffee, complete and comparative argumentation, and debaters who have not lost the ability to witness how ridiculous this activity often is. I often find myself rewarding heavily debaters who don’t fear the slowness. 157 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet McCartney, Jonathan I try to be as objective as possible when evaluating a debate. I primarily judge arguments based on my flow, and on arguments clearly developed in late rebuttals that are best supported by evidence or analysis. Speed is fine, but clarity of arguments is vital to my comprehension and your speaker points, particularly since I don’t judge that regularly. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents. I try to be open minded, and I will listen to most any type of argument, but I do have some preferences: 1) I think fiat is more good than bad in most instances. I generally think debates are better when affirmatives defend the policy implications of their plan, although I have been persuaded otherwise. I frequently find myself evaluating kritk fiat debates by evaluating the case impacts vs the kritk impacts, because framework debates are often intractable. I do enjoy crafty, innovative and specific kritks and I always like a good explanation of specifically how the kritk turns the case. I do think the negative can win that I should look to a framework other than policy making but they need to clearly establish the role of my ballot and the method through which I should evaluate the debate. If left to my own devices my natural default is to compare the policy consequences of plan vs status quo or competitive alternative. 2) I have an increasingly high standard for evaluating theory debates as voting issues. Clear interpretations, and proven abuse is important for winning a theory argument. Creative distinctions and theoretical innovations can be decisive if employed properly. I generally err negative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have certainly voted affirmative on a variety of theoretical objections, conditionality bad etc. I default to evaluating competing interpretations for theory if not told to do otherwise, but I am becoming increasingly skeptical of the value of this approach. 3) Topicality is an important negative tool, but evidence based definitions are generally necessary for a predictable interpretation. The negative has to clearly explain what their interpretation is, why the affirmative doesn't meet it, and what are the consequences of not meeting the interpretation. I think both in-round and potential abuse are useful tools for evaluating the merits of an interpretation. I default to evaluating competing interpretations of topicality unless told to do otherwise, but as said above, I am growing increasingly skeptical of the value of this approach. I think specifying the agent of plan is probably more good than bad, but I’m not Jeff Parcher. 4) I primarily evaluate arguments by assessing the strength of the link. Comparative link arguments are essential to winning any disad, kritk, case turn, etc. Specificity of link analysis/evidence is also vital to sorting out those link questions, this is particularly applicable to kritks. While controlling uniqueness is certainly important, I think the quality of link debates often suffers as a result of the adherence to the cult of uniqueness and the offense/defense mentality. Good, true defense against a link will defeat it even without offense if done properly. 5) Debates are most easily decided by who does better impact comparison in the last rebuttals. Cards supporting timeframe, or magnitude are nice. Explaining how the disad or kritk turns the case is also a plus, but having evidence to prove it can be decisive. 158 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet McDonald, Kelly At the conclusion of a debate, I see my role as a policy maker. That is, what policy am I going to implement - does the affirmative or negative present more compelling reasons for adoption of their program. To this end, all arguments are debatable. However, I think some arguments have much greater burdens of proof than others. I think topicality IS a voting issue. I cannot think of the last time (if ever) I voted for a reverse voting issue on T. Ground arguments seem the most compelling reason to vote either way on “T,” but they are so rarely explained beyond the level of ‘they erode our C/P or disad ground.’ “Signal” arguments on stopping topic expansion seem more problematic – but the ‘not what you are but what you justify’ is compelling. Synergistic explanations of topicality arguments and what the particular interpretation of the topic means are VERY important to me. Demonstrating ground loss IN ROUND is critical – exploit ‘no link’ type arguments made on disads that demonstrate the Aff’s abusiveness. Utopian counterplans (socialism or anarchy, for example) are legitimate but the team must be prepared to seriously defend issues of FIAT and the degree of stability in the transition period. An interim nuclear war b/c of instability caused by the government deciding to no longer exist would seem like a very compelling reason WHY we should NOT adopt the C/P. I vote for critiques / Kritiks / criticisms with great regularity. However, to simply assert the affirmative assumes “X” b/c they are affirmative and therefore must lose, is not compelling to me. A premium is placed on explanation of the link argumentation, or at least a clear explication of what the underlying assumptions are, so that THEY can be DEBATED. Do not read one piece of evidence or a series of cards and assume that Spanos or Asante or other authors are explanatory on their own. Consider having an “implications” segment on the position where you explain clearly the voting issue analysis for the position. I am highly suspect of new, clearly articulated impact assessments coming out of the criticism in the block if the 1NC is only a card or two. “Discursive” impacts, in terms of the sufficiency of creating in-round dialogue to solve a harm or foreclosing discussion, are certainly answers but are less clear in terms of their impact for the overall debate. If there is a claim to make about a discursive implication on a criticism position, you should be clear if you intend to claim “discursive” impacts. Making a claim about discursive impacts in rebuttals is problematic if that is not made in the constructive speech. Also, the argument should have clear implications explained, e.g. “we open discursive space” is a tagline and not an argument; same as “we spoke first therefore….” – not so persuasive. Specifics are important in writing plan. One thing I do not really like and seems to be a trend in writing plan texts are the blanket clauses about how plan “will be enacted consistent with the conclusions of the January issue of the Georgetown Law Review....” That is not really an explanation or explication of the plan tenets and seems problematic for an affirmative who may not necessarily want to buy into ALL assumptions or programs of a given author, book, article, commission, etc. I also hate it b/c it makes doing an exclusion C/P much more difficult unless one has read and/or has a copy of the article readily available. But that is one thing that is ‘Caveat Emptor’ – you write that and you are therefore responsible. Performance based arguments are acceptable, as with criticisms, however the standards for evaluation must be clearly articulated. I do not and will not be put in a position to vote on the authenticity of a debater’s personal standpoint, or life(style). All debate is, in a sense, a performance. I am not convinced there is a special probative force that something labeled “a performance” can muster than other argument styles cannot. Moreover, you should be aware that I think affirmatives must AFIRM something and I am wary of language in plan texts like “we demand,” “we request,” “we solict,” etc. I regularly vote on arguments that would be considered outside of the traditional canon of policy debate arguments but most things boil down to claims, data and warrants at the end of the day. Narratives, for example, are a type of evidence. There are reasons that narratives approaches may have some unique access to elements of performance or performance theory (performativity) but those things must be articulated and not assumed. In terms of the negative, I would basically say you must have a disadvantage to win the debate. Unless you are just going for topicality, be certain to have some substantive impact at the end of the debate. Comparison of impact evidence is especially important for the negative. That is, what is your impact, why is it bigger, why does it happen faster, how big is the war/famine/etc. compared with the affirmative solvency evidence and why should I privilege your interpretation? I will read evidence after a debate. I will read ALL parts of the evidence, not simply the underlined or highlighted portions. Challenges to the authenticity of evidence is fundamentally different than shortcomings in the warranting power of particular cards. The challenging team should be able to produce the 159 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet original to prove the impropriety. If proven, the offending team loses the debate and will receive ZERO speaker points. Ethical presentation is fundamental if this activity can have any legitimacy. Tag team is fine where necessary. If a debater is prepping their speech and missed an answer, please ask. However, it is a bit rude and perceptually looks bad to talk over your partner for three minutes. I am fairly responsive to arguments during a debate so look up periodically and see what I am doing. You will know when you have crossed the line. By the same token, I respond favorably to issues as well. 160 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet McIntosh, Chris In general, I’m here to listen. It’s the debater’s world, and I’m just living in it. I have preconceptions and things I believe, but they change—one of the primary ways that happens is by judging/interacting with the debate community. I don’t really know what I think is great debate—it’s progressive and changes over the years but like most everyone, I think I know it when I see it Theory/Topicality arguments—I’m open to them, but as I get older, I find theory debates kind of boring— but I do enjoy a well executed/thought out T debate. That being said, I see debate as a tactical as well as strategic activity and appreciate a well-executed theory strategy. In general, although I try and keep my biases out, I’m hard pressed to vote on exclusionary counterplans bad—affs should write their plans carefully. Dispositionality and Conditionality I’m also predisposed to think are okay. Ispec, Aspec, Ospec, Spec-spec, I don’t really know as well, but will vote if it makes sense. Critical arguments—Don’t really feel qualified to make a sweeping statement about the so-called “critical turn” In general, I’m excited to listen to many of the arguments, but will freely admit that I’m not quite as well versed on certain literatures that seem to have taken over debate—e.g., I am aware of Zizek/Lacan’s influence on contemporary political/philosophical thinking, but I have no real background in it via debate or otherwise. I’m not quite a babe in the woods, but know enough to realize how very little I do know in the abstract about many of the issues raised in these debates. I’ll adjudicate as best as possible. The only real bias I would say I have is that I’m loathe to vote on critical arguments regarding topicality—although even that is not a hard and fast rule. One last thing—this year especially I seem to judge debates of this nature that frequently turn on two or three arguments. If you’re negative, do not be afraid to implement a strategy that recognizes this. If, for instance, to be completely hypothetical, an affirmative double turns itself from the outset, I am more than willing to vote on this argument alone. Disads/Case debates—On it. Don’t really know what to say other than I’m probably more willing to listen to analytical arguments than others. Also, if there’s a quality argument that takes into account the other team’s cards—I may not even read them. Debate is an analytical activity—I reward teams who are fast, tight, and read a lot of cards, but debates need to be debated—otherwise there are simply times where debaters can’t win, because the evidence just isn’t there. That’s no fun (or more appropriately, it’s pedagogically problematic). I also don’t really buy the offense/defense framework unless it’s a tiebreaker thing. If there’s no internal link to your disad—then there’s no internal link to your disad—thus, no disad. Having offense is a luxury—smart arguments win out, regardless Decorum—Respect the advocate, do what you will with the argument. Be aggressive, be passive, be yourself. One pet peeve—being a smartass can be humorous, but there are two elements to it. If you’re one without the other…I won’t be happy. Regardless of appearances, I honestly consider myself lucky to be judging/interacting with this community—and that means judging you. I view judges as being there for the debaters—I’ll try and live up to that responsibility. 161 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Mika, Jason Topicality: The violation, interpretation, standards, and voters need to be very clear (so slow down so I can flow it); a comparison of the competing interpretations with an explanation of why one is superior is a must. I am reluctant to vote on a ten second violation, but will do so if it is dropped or completely mishandled. The voting issue is open for discussion, the same with extra and effects. I have voted only a few times this year on topicality, but that is as much a function of negative strategies and the resolution as my reluctance to pull the trigger. Counterplans: I don’t have a preference for nor against them. I don’t have a problem with PICs, but can be convinced of their evil within the round. Topical, conditional, dispositional, international, or other counterplans are fine so long as you can defend the theoretical merits. Solvency for counterplans is too often taken for granted within rounds in my estimation. Specific solvency evidence is preferable, but not necessary if you can explain why the counterplan gets the same solvency as the aff. Although the less specific the evidence, the more likely I am to conclude the counterplan doesn’t solve as well as the plan. In short, both teams need to compare solvency if they want it to matter in my decision. Given equal solvency, the tiniest net benefit is all that is needed (duh). I much prefer if you begin to evaluate the plan/perm(s) versus the cp early in the debate since this is often what is key in a cp round. Slow down on theory!!! Too many teams blaze through theory and then expect me to vote on a dropped subpoint of a subpoint. If I do not flow it, I do not expect the other team to do so either. Voting issue proliferation has also gotten out of control in theory debates in my opinion. Kritiks: While not the biggest fan of them, I am willing to listen and vote on them. They must be explained clearly though. I am not partial to any specific type of critique, but have voted on them more this year than ever before. While I coach at a rather non-K school, if one is part of your strategy, this should not shy you away from running it. I also think that most affs answers to them are poor; many teams are afraid to make arguments that the K fails to dejustify doing our plan. Some even have failed to make perms, and I usually find them to be damning arguments versus a K. Case/Disads: Negatives usually need an offensive argument to win the round. I don’t like to vote on just case takeouts, but could be convinced to do so. Conversely, disad takeouts don’t necessarily reduce the risk of the disad to zero. I do miss the days of case turn strategies. Performance/Policy Debate: I prefer policy debating. I will listen to critical arguments and performances though. Be ready to defend your framework though. Cross-ex: The long lost art of asking questions has become the 3 minutes of evidence gathering far too often. I reward debaters who use C-X to further their arguments or weaken their opponents’ arguments. I flow C-X. The Rest: WEIGH!!! I don’t have a predisposition about how to evaluate a round. At least the last two rebuttals should address this, but I prefer when this line of argumentation is begun earlier. I also prefer rounds where teams collapse the issues and only spend time debating the issues vital to the round, but I recognize the strategic value of not doing so as well. In sum, I 162 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet prefer in depth debates on fewer issues than less developed ones on many issues. Comparing evidence is another lost art in my opinion. Strategic decisions within the round will be rewarded. I most appreciate when teams weigh partial risks of disads and partial solvency of a counterplan versus the partial risk of the aff, instead of assuming that each issue will be won cleanly. “If…then,” statements go a long way to assisting my evaluation of the round. 163 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Mitchell, Gordon Pittsburgh The world of intercollegiate policy debate is an odd and magical place, where a keen spirit of competition drives debaters to amass voluminous research in preparation for tournaments, and where the resulting density of ideas spurts speakers to cram arguments into strictly timed presentation periods during contest rounds. Expert judges trained in policy analysis keep track of such contests as they unfold at breakneck speed, with speakers routinely delivering intricate argumentation at over 300 words per minute. To the uninitiated onlooker, this style of debate reveals itself as an unintelligible charade, something like a movie-length Federal Express commercial or an auctioneering competition gone bad. But there are rich rewards for participants who master policy debate's special vocabulary, learn its arcane rules, and acclimate themselves to the style of rapid-fire speaking needed to keep up with the flow of arguments. The rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives on policy controversies. The intense pressure of debate competition instills a relentless research ethic in participants. An inverted pyramid dynamic embedded in the format of contest rounds teaches debaters to synthesize and distill their initial positions down to the most cogent propositions for their final speeches. - Gordon R. Mitchell, preface to Strategic Deception: Rhetoric, Science and Politics in Missile Defense Advocacy (Michigan State University Press, 2000), p. xvi. GENERAL: My general predisposition as a judge is to approach the evaluative task hermeneutically, bringing my theoretical presumptions into conversation with the arguments presented by the debaters in the round. What follows is a rundown of these presumptions, which are not hard and fast rules, but rather default positions – starting points that are open to revision, nudgage, slippage, and inversion (with the right mix of persuasion). THEORY: Default particulars (presumptions that can be shifted with convincing reasons): Plan-inclusive / topical counterplans okay if competitive by non-trivial net benefits; Neg must show specific in-round ground loss to win T; Micro-agent or exception counterplans absorbable by aff unless contrary rock-solid commitment made in plan or 1AC CX (except in cases of excessive CX evasion); Magnitude generally trumps time frame on impact comparisons; Negative should have solvency ev for their c/p; Legitimacy of neg international fiat depends on the quality of evidence presented to prove workability and salience of the c/p. ARGUMENT SPECIFICS: Regarding political process disadvantages, I give aff leeway on new args in rebuttals when the shell is presented without significant initial / internal links in 1NC. Also, I am heretic of the "cult of uniqueness" – I think the aff takes out or turns the link to a DA, that DA is no longer a reason to vote neg, even if the neg wins uniqueness. Contrary to some popular opinion, I do not rule out politics disadvantages a priori – I give them a careful hearing, although the evidence must support the story for me to give them large weight. KRITIKS / DEONTOLOGY: I will vote on kritik arguments, but the following presumptions for evaluation open much space for rejoinder: 1) I’m a stickler for performative consistency, because I tend to believe that performative contradictions undermine the ethos of critics, especially when such critics present their arguments as pedagogical interventions; 2) The role of the ballot as an agent of change needs to be elucidated in order to provide a rationale for why they implication of kritiks are voting issues. 3) The most persuasive kritik arguments are supported by detailed and specific link analysis relating the terms of the kritik directly to opponents’ argumentation. EVIDENCE / STYLE: Debaters who deliver the texts of evidence cards clearly will receive bountiful speaker point rewards, and debaters who call out and challenge opponents who slough such responsibilities for clarity will receive a sympathetic hearing. The clearer a card is presented in the speech, the greater the chance that I will call for it after the round. Spirited debate over the interpretation of specific pieces of evidence also increases the chances that I will give cards a gander. Conversely, wholesale “read this string of cards, they’re great” appeals do little to encourage post-round inspection. 164 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Moore, Matt On the spectrum of things I am a more policy oriented judge than K oriented. This does not mean I do not vote for nonpolicy or nontraditional arguments (these arguments seem to have a pretty good record in front of me), it is just what I know better and what I prefer. Pet Peeves: Each round and each year a new one comes up. I hate prep stealers. My new one is this: c-x time runs out and you still have not gotten the speaker to give you the link you want so you declare “I will use prep time for this!” Yawn. You get 3 minutes to get these concessions- you obviously did not spend it well. This is not saying that you should not ask questions in prep time (I think some are necessary- like which card did you read). What I am saying is that if c-x becomes a 5 minute ordeal chances are I have not paid attention to the last two minutes. Prioritize your questions. Theory: I generally agree with the neg on a lot of theory questions but this is all conditioned on what the situation is. I will vote aff for the usual counterplan theory arguments and have a bunch. I like specific debates on the question, not just two opposing blocks read (i.e. they said dispo bad- here are my dispo good blocks divided into offense and defense). Answer specific arguments. It is very, very, very hard to get me to vote for perm bad theory arguments, especially in a world where the aff does not go for it. If the 2nr thinks s/he is going to win because the 1AR did not go for a severance perm that they flagged as a voter- the 2nr has another think (and some not so great speaks) to look forward to. This applies to K args as much as counterplans. Kritiks: Here is the warning- I do not read this stuff on a regular basis. I do not chomp at the bit for the latest FOTM philosopher nor care too much what they are saying until I realize that we need answers to it. You best be able to explain them (here is a hint- use terms I am familiar with and explain how this stuff functions in the debate). If your argument is we should win because “we encircle the real better than they do,” I will begin pounding my head on my desk and start thinking about dinner plans. You and your wonderful reason why I should vote for you should start thinking what you will be doing with all of your free time on out round day. I like specific case debate. I tend to not read a lot of evidence after the debate. It is up to the debaters to give me a reason to read it. I have come to realize that I have started caring less about the tiny parts of the flow (the B sub 3 was conceded) and tend to vote for what seems to make sense to me at the end of the debate. Granted I am crazy so what makes sense to me probably makes sense to no one else, but that is the risk you take. I try to frame my decision the way the 2nr/2ar frames the debate. If I step outside of this I will explain the where and why of this to you. 165 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Moore, S.J. I’ll begin by acknowledging that I have biases that I bring into debate rounds with me. I try my best to minimize the impact of these biases, but when I hear debaters say things like “Vote for me because I said that purple monkey crap is neo-colonial,” those biases just cannot be contained. I’ll make no secret out of the fact that I would rather hear disad and counterplan debates than Zizek debates. In a perfect world, those disad and counterplan debates would include things like impact calculations and evidence comparisons. You can dance and play music in front of me if you want to, but, be warned, such an approach would not be unlike showing me some porn during the round. I might smile, and perhaps even wiggle uncontrollably, but in the end, I’ll probably be too distracted to actually understand your argument and/or vote for you. I think of debate as a game. At least that’s my default perspective. If you want to transform debate into something else, you should be damn sure to explain how that transformation would work. If you want me to join you in your movement, but don’t explain what my role would be, then you should be prepared for me to tell you that (a) I’m lazy, and don’t often like to take up causes that exist outside of Grand Theft Auto or Tiger Woods 2005, or (b) I’m busy with things like school work and job interviews in the hope that I will eventually make lots of money. Yes, that’s right, I said it. I like capitalism and I want to swim around in it all freakin’ day. This is not to say that I won’t vote for teams that run critical arguments, only that those arguments are not some of my favorites and that the threshold for picking up my ballot when you make those arguments is probably higher than many other judges. I need the impacts and the alternative (if you have one) to be well explained, and don’t expect me to do any of that work for you. As far as other arguments are concerned, here are some thoughts: I’m not a huge topicality/specification fan. The abuse needs to be pretty clear before I vote on topicality. The humiliation of losing to an argument like implementation spec is so large, that I wield that weapon with great care. Surprisingly though, my love for topicality increases when the affirmative team forgets to read a plan. I err negative on most theory debates. Conditional counterplans are where I begin to draw the line, though, and a conditional counterplan that the negative team calls dispositional just makes that team look silly. I’ll vote on “cheapshots,” but I don’t like to. Most of the rest of my advice is just common sense that most every debater has been told hundreds of times over. This includes things like weigh your impacts, tell a story of the big picture in the last two speeches, and as Glen Strickland always told me, “Make sure to extend Inherency!” By the way, if you tell me that “X” is the most offensive thing that you’ve ever heard, then I feel sorry for you. Clearly your world is too small and you’ve never seen Chappelle’s Show. 166 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Morales, Tristan Northwestern After glancing through a few other judge philosophies I think it’s safe to say that most of the things I could say here would be relatively cliché and in line with a large majority of the pool generally. I’d imagine this philosophy will be more informative come NDT time when I’ve done a little more judging and had a chance to refine. 3 Meta-things are most important for my judging: none of them earth-shattering. 1. Impact assessment: In whatever form this manifests itself I’ve frequently found myself thinking teams have lost debates they probably should have won (better strategy, evidence etc) because they’ve let themselves get out-debated on the relative assessment of terminal impacts in the debate. Defending the relative merit of a particular impact lens (ie magnitude outweighs time-frame considerations etc) is frequently better and more in line with the reality of the debate then spreading yourself thin with the claim that the case/DA best access all impact lens; (ie DA outweighs magnitude, timeframe, probability etc). 2. Specificity: like many my favorite debates are frequently when the neg has a specific Pic with a net-benefit that turns the case; if you’ve got a good one of those however you’re probably not reading this because your in pretty good shape no matter the judge. Even if you’re reading a generic DA/critique flushing out the particular manifestations of your link claim in a not-soshallow fashion helps immensely in short-circuiting generic Aff offense. 3. Evidence quality” this is fairly heavily linked frequently to specificity but can also be the best trump card relative to specificity of the other sides claims. If you have great evidence on X is the root of all don’t be afraid to push extremely heavily in on this claim and defend why the general theory outweighs specificity in this particular context. Assessing the best case scenario for your opponents strategy, even if only briefly, in the last rebuttals can help immensely if only insofar as it demonstrates that you’ve taken off the blinders to see the forest and to pre-empt the conclusion that if they win what they win, they win. Long final rebuttal overviews usually go way overboard on this. Final things: debates frequently turn dramatically on who demonstrates control of the debate in the C-X, I really love good evidence, good spin about yours and your opponents evidence, and tasteful clowning on your opponents arguments, and I find myself fairly in line with the Repko school of thought as it relates to skepticism about most consultation counterplans and nontopic/aff specific spec arguments but of course (drumroll please requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) I’ll vote on either, and just about anything, if you demonstrate its legitimacy and are ahead substantively. 167 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Morgan-Parmett, Justin vermont rounds judged this year: 15 my judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that i am judging. you can run whatever type of argument that you want to in fornt of me. i do have my preferences and they lean towards a more critical approach. the rounds i watch that are disad and counterplan debates combined with lots of debate theory have not been very inspiring or fun recently. i would rather be inspired and have fun. you probably don't want to tell me that i am a policy maker, which means that i should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. i don’t understand why, even as policy makers, we should not be considering the assumptions and discursive justifications for our actions. i prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as being mean will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. my flow is good enough, i think. i tend to use the flow as a guide to making my decision. it will not have every word that you said in the debate. this does not mean that i will let you get away with making brand new arguments in the last rebuttals. with very few exceptions, new arguments are not evaluated in the last rebuttal. i read evidence, but only to look for the arguments that you claim are in the evidence. in terms of alternate forms and styles of debate, you should feel free to experiment in whatever way you desire. explain to me why it is important and helps to shape the content of your speech and i could be persuaded that this is a reason to vote for you. i am not so likely to vote on topicality unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. do not just say that you cant run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. i usually think that affs have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. you do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean. i do not believe that the resolution is supposed to mean anything at all. usually these debates come down to the issue of fairness without realizing that fairness is always already pre-determined. i am often times not persuaded by the neg here. i am also not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that i should reject a team for running a particular argument, i.e., PICS bad or dispo bad. it makes sense to reject the argument, but not the team. here affs would have a hard time picking up my ballot. i think that this is enough to get an idea of where i stand. the debate is for you, but i also will inevitably be a part of it. if there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time. i hope this helps you to figure out what number you should put next to my name. justin morgan-parmett 168 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Morris, Eric Missouri State Big Picture Things: If you change from the strategy you thought gave you the best chance to win because I’m judging, you are probably over-adapting. I tape rounds that I watch and will be happy to give you a copy on CD after the round (if I have a blank CD). Calling things a voting issue does not make them so; dropping the argument not the team is my default position. I always like it when teams are attentive to and counter interpret the other side’s cards, but explain so I can understand it during the round before I read said card. Cross Ex is important for this and other purposes; I listen closely to CX and often flow it. Counterplans: For Net Benefits competition, Neg needs to win some CLEAR reason that the CP alone is better than doing both. Even without a solvency deficit, if you just have a risk of a risk there’s a risk you won’t win. Explicitly compare net benefits to solvency deficits, as my comparison may be too creative for your taste. Most perms need to be explained based on how they interact with the net benefit. If you aren’t clear about which argument are and are not net benefits, you risk tragedy. Counterplan Theory Arguments: You can argue about conditionality, PICs, fiat abuse, dispo, CP legitimacy, etc. Absent argument, I don’t mind cond/dispo and think that showing an illegitimacy in the CP only makes the CP go away. I would potentially vote Aff on CP illegitimacy if there was a clearly won reason for doing so. Often, arguments about abuse fail because they beg the question of what should be legitimate and illegitimate. I have a general sense that some of the marginally accepted counterplans (delay, utopian, multiple actor, and maybe Intl.) could be shown illegitimate. You might be able to win PICs bad, but many PICs seen to generate good policy clash. The K: The K have a strong link, and ideally be a reason to reject the central thesis of the case. If I have a pet peeve recently, it is the proliferation of critique-y arguments without clear implications. What is the internal link between winning your K and voting against the plan/voting negative? Critiques which operate inside a policy making view are often more persuasive. Really, you can win about any argument in front of me, but presumption favors voting on whether the plan is good policy. Many kritiks make good CP net benefits. I am often interested in the literature from which the K is drawn, and I am receptive to arguments which catch the other team over-simplifying a position and turn that into an argument against the way the position was run. Topicality: For negative to win here, I need to understand the lines you draw, why those lines are good, and be fairly sure the plan is on the wrong side. Topical ground is a good way to compare interpretations, but so are normative reasons. You should have some kind of definition support (even if only a contextual card) to show your interpretation is grounded. A non-topical PIC might be a better approach. Arguments that T is not a voting issue, such as ‘don't vote on potential abuse,' are easy to beat. I am very sympathetic to negative concerns about cases that don't pretend to affirm the resolution (not limited to certain performative approaches), although the negative has to actually engage creative affirmative rationalizations that might justify such cases. Various general thoughts: When reading evidence after the round, I may read & react to unhighlighted claims in evidence even if they don't get mentioned. Good debating includes knowing what their evidence says and showing its weaknesses (or otherwise accounting for it). My standards for new argument are more liberal than some; many arguments are really development of earlier arguments or responses to the other side's development. The line between ‘legitimate development' and ‘simply too new' is fuzzy, and you need to help police it too. I tend to flow tag & card text more than cite, referencing only the cite may not suffice. I value intricate case debate and strategies that account for everything the opponent said. Often, negatives win important line-by-line details because the block was much more developed than the 2AC/1AR. I've taken to flowing on the computer, with all associated risks and benefits. I don’t want to vote on cheap shots, so answer them dammit. Ask me if you have further questions. 169 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Morrison, Cate Pittsburgh I don't think that debate is mine, so I am not particularly interested in legislating what debaters can and cannot do while I judge. Instead, this is a guide to my predilections in a vacuum and the occasional shortcoming . There's no type of debate that I prefer or do not prefer, though there are issues of execution that turn me off or on. Theory debates are fine by me. It's cool to see debaters grappling with questions of how debate should operate. Tagline debating, however, isn't really debating at all, far as I can tell. The key to a cool theory debate--tailored violations (I am much more compelled by "X-kind of conditionality bad" than generics) and inventive counterinterpretations by the answering team that takes out the opponents' offense. I will evaluate the round based on the framework that teams offer. If one defines a way for me to understand the round and the other does not, I default to the uncontested framework. The debaters make the rules for the game. I don't think there's a critical/policy divide. They bleed into one another; a critical position may have disastrous practical implications, an epistemological warp may change the way a policy operates...as a word of advice, I think that whenever either team defends the entirety of "critical" or "policy" debate, that they are taking on more liabilities than are necessary. Instead, what is the most reasonable middle ground? Now, that being said, I am a better critic in left-of-center rounds simply because I am more involved with the literature. I'm a full time grad student that reads a lot of philosophy and doesn't cut cards. It doesn't mean I am more likely to vote for a critique than other judges (indeed, I'm usually a tougher sell), but you can't assume that I am up on the warming or oil debate the way you can assume I know what Heidegger says. You gotta help me out, and if you do...to each her own. As to the question of style, I have a confession to make: I am not JudgeTRON 5000. My flow is ok but by no means spectacular. As I am a human being, I am susceptible to the aesthetics that live underneath the episteme-philia of debate. Thus, I have no problem admitting that when a debater makes it clear that certain arguments are important in an unabashedly performative manner (i.e., the rise of volume, the momentary pause, the eye contact), these moments will then jump out at me from the morass of a huge flow. I also have very little problem giving less credence to a tag-line-extension-infested debate when its juxtaposed with a clear, well-explained story on the other. I am not judging your coach's card cutting, I'm judging your debating skills. On the rare occasion that I read cards, it is to confirm that they say what the debaters say they say, or when there are evidentiary indicts from both sides. I don't trust my capacity to reconstruct a debate with the help of a flow and every piece of evidence read, and you should not trust me either. That's about it. I'm glad to be in the back of the room, and if I'm at all cranky with you, it's because I know you can do better, not because I don't like you. I'm toughest on the people I am most impressed by (because they can take it). sincerely, cate Morrison 170 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Nelson, Sam Cornell Available before rounds or by contacting me directly. 171 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Newnam, Bill Emory I view myself as a critic of rhetoric and argument and an educator.. As such, I do not place myself in role of policy wonk, truth seeker, or other divine personage. Fiat exists as an imaginative act, but the arguments you make and the words you use are more real than the policies you proffer and defend. I listen to arguments, attempt to decide which team made the best arguments and vote for them. But there are several things you should know. 1. I prefer to minimize my own intervention. If you do not answer an argument, even if it appears obviously answered elsewhere or obviously foolish, I will award it to the other team. This is not to say that I am completely tabula rasa. Being a critic, I expect the argument to have some reason with it, not merely be a throwaway, "this is a voting issue" claim, sans reasons. I expect it to be a somewhat complete argument: claim, data, warrant. 2. I do not like to read a lot of evidence. I find that my personal level of intervention is more likely to increase the more evidence I read. I find that if I have to draw a lot of distinctions between evidence which the debaters do not draw themselves, then I have a higher level of intervention than I would like. The best way to control this is for you is to explain the IMPLICATIONS of particularly important pieces of evidence in the last two speeches, highlighting which evidence you think is most important is much better than allowing me to do that for (or against) you. 3. Overviews in the last two speeches are less important than coverage. A short overview explaining what you are going for, how the issues you are going for will win the debate in light of what your opponent is going for, and then applying that overview to the appropriate arguments, is far better for me than lengthy overviews which leave a lot of unresolved arguments on critical places in the "line-by-line." 4. I will evaluate impact assessments late in the debate, but if you concede (drop) an impact or link turn to one of your own impacts, you have a higher threshold to overcome when I evaluate comparative impacts late in the debate. 5. Decorum is important. Being a critic and educator, I believe it is important to treat your opponent, your audience AND you partner with respect. I do not object to "tag-team" cross-ex with an emphasis on TEAM. I will not allow one debater to answer and ask all of the questions in the 12 minutes of cross-ex time. Of course, if there is an issue with which one student is more familiar than another you should feel free to offer your input. However, keep it at the minimum necessary for clarification. Do not feel free to overwhelm your partner's equal participation in the crossex. 6. I do not object to conditional arguments nor do I believe the negative has to do anything more than negate. However, on rare occasions, I have witnessed arguments leaving the aff with no option but to read contradictory evidence. When this happens I have voted for conditional args bad. But this has been RARE. 7. PICS are okay though I will listen to opposing arguments. Nontopical pics seem to undercut the aff positions that PICS steal their ground. 8.. My biggest problem with critical arguments is usually with the alternative debate where negatives argue that they can advocate the good parts of the aff but not the things they criticize. The lack of specificity the neg gets away in such "floating PIC" debates amazes me. 9. I generally go into a debate expecting the affirmative to affirm the resolution. 10. I have a difficult time segregating performance from arguments. The performance of an argument is difficult for me at least to distinguish from the normal modes of credibility in determining which arguments I am more likely to vote for. Please keep in mind that the biases I discuss above are not necessarily decisive. I only include these as a warning to let you know what my leanings will be if these issues are left unresolved or are extremely close. I still consider myself fairly open to alternative viewpoints and I strive very hard to allow the debaters to control these issues rather than allow my own biases to control them. Enjoy your debates. 172 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Newton, Melissa I’m not sure if I have developed a judging philosophy per se, but overall, I strive to only intervene when forced to. I start from the belief that debate is debatable. I try to be the type of judge I always wanted in the back of the room; someone who you felt confident you could go for any type of argument in front of. If you fail to tell me what framework I should evaluate the round in, I will default to a paradigm in which I weigh the advantages and disadvantages to the affirmative. That being said, here are my thoughts about specific arguments… Topicality- Usually this is a voting issue, although I definitely can be persuaded that it is not. I generally do not prefer the argument that “T is genocidal” because I think it is trivializing to those who do suffer from real genocide. I see topicality as a debate about competing interpretations, if you win your interpretation is better for debate, you will win my ballot. Counterplans- I literally have no predispositions on this issue. If you run a counterplan in front of me, be prepared to defend the theory behind it. I can be persuaded to listen to any alternative policy option/options you may choose to initiate within the debate. I can also be persuaded that the negative shouldn’t get any policy options within academic debate. Anything goes. Disadvantages- Generic ones are fine, make sure you give me a clear 2nr story with well explicated impacts that you weigh in relation to the affirmatives advocacy. I require more explanation from both the affirmative and negative on a politics debate, I always avoided this debate in my career, so I am not as familiar with all of the jargon. Kritiks- Same as disads, generic ones are fine, make sure you give me a clear 2nr story with well explicated impacts that you weigh in relation to the affirmatives advocacy. In my years of debate I became familiar with language critics and multiple strands of feminist thought. I do not have such a high familiarity with arguments such as Spanos, Lacan, Foucault, Zizek, Campell, Baudrilliard, Heideger, Dillon, etc. This does not mean you can’t go for these arguments in front of me, but it will require you to do a bit more explanation. My one frustration this year in judging K debates has been that people do not explain the K in terms of the plan and instead throw around non articulated generic catch phrases. Performance/Lack of Plans- Fine by me, just let me know why I should vote for you. This questions my role of the ballot, I can be persuaded I should pretend to be a policy maker, educator, intellectual endorser, congress person, or that I shouldn’t pretend to be anyone. I should warn you that within my career I usually initiated a “policy making” framework, so my familiarity with these debate is lower (see kritik section), although I am still open to them. Other things you should know. Please be nice to each other, there is nothing worse than seeing two members of the activity being mean to each other in a heated debate. Please be clear on the flow, where you are, where you are going, where I am supposed to place your arguments. If you are fast, slow down on theory blocks because there is no physical way I can record all of your arguments otherwise (yes, I do flow, unless persuaded that I shouldn’t). Last, but certainly not least, please avoid using exclusionary language within the debate, if you use it, it is likely I will notice. I will not proactively drop you, or your speaker points, but expect for me to initiate a discussion about it after the debate. 173 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Nielson, Toni I think debate is a dialogue and expect debaters to dialogue with each other and me. Generally, this means a pace that is understandable to the public at large and a move away from technical debate theory only valuable to lifelong debaters (e.g. i-spec, T, and the likes). Just talk only people sucked down the debate wormhole and missing touch with any form of reality ask questions like "how fast is too fast?" Prioritizing critical and genuine approaches to the topic are the exciting parts of debate for me. I think the best arguments flow from our hearts and life experiance into the round and I know that’s really not how many people frame the political, but it’s the only method that lets me sleep at night. Although, I often wonder whether anyone in this world should sleep soundly. I suppose you really want to know how I feel about the parts of our game spun for competitive purposes. Topicality, procedurals, blah- hhmmm- the topic can be interpreted in many ways and I will enjoy a diversity of approaches. Let the interpretation and the implications of each reading begin, sometimes this is quite a fascinating debate. Most of the time, topicality is a race for ridiculous precision and ground rules my ballot in these moments. I think, in general, procedurals aren’t really what we’re here for. C/P and Counter-advocacies: Always a plus. DA’s- I hear them and most are outlandish stories, but if we put the 7th Fleet in the South China Sea, well, that could spark a war with China. I guess the ballot is still out on the DA debate- I’ll listen to your story. The K- YEAH BABY! Let’s do it, perform it, envision it, reject it, and masturbate it for peace. Creative, poetic, open metaphysical space. Places I think are up and coming in the K debate scene: theatre, alternative theory, conditionality or the temporal nature of the negatives methodology, and as always the SPECIFIC link debate. 174 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Nix, Elisha General preferences - my background is in policy debate and that is definitely what I prefer to hear. That said, other types of arguments can be compelling enough to win my ballot, but it will probably be a much harder battle. Topicality - is a voting issue, a good topicality debate involves an explanation of what the topic would look like under your interpretation, why your interpretation is superior to the other team's interpretation, and a reason why the other team is not within your interpretation if you're neg. Theory - I don't have preferences on a lot of areas that are generally argued. The areas that I do tend to favor heavily are no affirmative conditionality and consistency throughout the round (completely contradictory positions or changing positions midway through the round is not good). Reverse voting issues, funding specification, and other similar arguments sound whiny unless there is some extreme form of in-round abuse. Being challenged by tough arguments is part of the game, rise to the challenge and answer them substantively. Kritiks - I am not opposed to any type of argument that may come under this heading, but I am not as familiar with the literature or language of critical arguments. This means that any team who wishes to win by running a kritik should make sure that they explain the kritik and its implications in common english (This probably means short words. Although at one time I knew what terms like existential, ontological, metaphysical or biopower meant, if you string them together at top speed there is little chance that I will actually be able to follow you). Performance - Winning performance rounds in front of me will be very hard if the other team has a compelling reason to remain in a policy realm. If both teams wish to evaluate the round outside of a traditional policy type of framework, that is fine. Again, my caveat is that I have found some non-policy teams to be extra-ordinarily persuasive, especially when I wasn't put in a position of opposing the other team's arguments as a debater in the round. I strongly prefer at least a minimal amount of civility within a round. The more debaters enjoy the round, the more I will have an opportunity to appreciate their skills as debaters and not get annoyed with their rudeness. final note - I have not judged any rounds on the college topic this year, so don't assume that I am familiar with the typical arguments, acronyms or other type of specialized facts. Please be clear when you reference things. 175 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet O’Donnell, Tim Mary Washington PART I: Most recent thoughts (circa February 2005): 1) Can we please just compromise? I think the aff gets to pick the framework. See my 2004 DRG article, but pay attention to the constraints. 2) Don’t get stuck on bad politics disads. Why do teams run politics disads -- which usually means doing all this work to just win an economy impact. Here’s a hint: topical aff = link to an economy disad (no need to cut all those politics updates). Nontopical aff – probably doesn’t link to an economy disad. In that case, go for T. 3) Aff’s shouldn’t give the neg big whopping cans of fiat with the states cp. Aff’s should make good arguments about the negative’s fiat. 4) You want to play the politics game? Well, voting negative links to the disad too. 5) Voting issue prolif. I’m officially done. If you say voting issue more than once, i’ll dock your speaker Points for starters. Find another impact to your theory arguments. Even then, I am hard pressed to figure Out why the vast majority of theory arguments are voting issues. Given at least 1-4 above, I can’t figure out why UMW debaters think I have such a huge neg bias… Oh, Yeah – its because I seem to vote negative a lot (64% of the time) PART II: What I’ve been saying for three years: 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 176 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 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, with 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 inround 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. 177 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 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. 178 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 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). 179 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Odekirk, Scott I am a college debater at weber state university. I have been debating for a while and have ran various diverse strategies. I am "cool" with any arguments, but I "enjoy" deeper more complex debates. i think this type of well developed debating happens on more critical arguments but it can happen in any debate. Not to say that I am a critique hack by any means, so many "K" debates are muddled, disjointed, filled with meaningless buzzwords(these are the least "enjoyable" debates). all in all if you take the time to explain the implications of your argument, top to bottom, I will dig you. But remember, it's your round, i am paid to listen to what "you" have to say. if you beat the other team on your argument I will vote for you. A few more things 1. a lot of times in the last rebuttal nobody really steps and wins the debate, these debates are bad and its not my "bad" if your pissed at the end of the round when i vote. 2. persuasion is key- Randy Luskey(Berkely) won the copeland on tons and tons of mojo. My ballot and understanding of the round are greatly effected by passionate speaking. Sometimes speed sucks. 3. Framework is Key- I find myself voting on framework arguments of all kinds, conservative to radical, if you are winning your framework it shifts many of the arguments in the round in your favor. Have a good time with debate, push the boundaries or live inside the margins, either way make sure you are enjoying the activity. 180 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Olney, Charles Dartmouth Judged 23 debates 10-13 for the aff/neg Short version: do whatever you want to do. Going for arguments you are good at, enjoy debating, and know well will almost always be better for you than trying to figure out what I want. Everything from here on is of minimal importance compared to what’s above. However, it could definitely be helpful, particularly in close debates, so I’ve included a lot of stuff. In particular, since I know it’s the main question most people ask when filling out a strike card, I’ll start with the K. Critiques (neg case) – I vote on Ks a lot, though I think the aff has a lot of good arguments. Particularly, I think most critiques fail the framework test: they don’t answer the question asked by the resolution. However, I tend to find K teams are a lot better prepared to debate this question. If you not debating the framework of the K (both in terms of what it means for the aff and what it means for policy analysis), you’re probably in trouble. In “critique” debates I have judged, the K team has won a little over half of the time. Critiques (aff case) – I am probably in the minority on this but I find K affs much more theoretically legit than Ks on the neg. I think aff choice is very persuasive, as long as you defend something topical. Even so, I need to know what the framework of the debate is if it is anything beyond traditional plan focus. Non-traditional args/frameworks – I’m probably not as good a judge here as I am for more traditional critiques. I find a lot of what people are doing very interesting and certainly won’t dismiss anything people want to do because of their style. However, the converse is also true that I tend to be unpersuaded that teams should win because of their style or anything else beyond the arguments in the debate. I’m open to what you have to say and how you want to say it, but my guess is that you’d probably rather have someone else in the back of the room. General K stuff – My familiarity with various authors/arguments: Very familiar: Foucault, IR critiques, variations on the cap K, securitization, Spanos/McWhorter and variations, the human rights K and variations Pretty familiar: Levinas, Derrida, Butler, Heidegger I get the gist, but don’t assume I’m well-read: Baudrillard, Agamben, Zizek, Lacan, Badiou Some other important stuff: - Debate does still, in fact, contain a speaking component. Don’t get me wrong, I love evidence, but I grow increasingly frustrated with the trend of judges stacking up every card and then voting for whichever team has the better evidence. Good evidence matters a LOT, but how you debate the evidence is also very important. I have found myself on the bottom of a couple 2-1s already this year, where my focus on how the evidence was debated was probably a significant factor in why I decided differently. To give you an idea how I approach the decision: I usually decide the debate before I even look at any cards. Then, I check the evidence to see if it matches my perceptions. In approximately 1/3 of debates, the evidence will strongly influence me, but in the other 2/3, the decision I ultimately give is not significantly different than the tentative one I came to before looking at the cards. A specific example: I rarely find myself persuaded by impact cards like “NMD is souring relations with Russia and China, pushing us to the brink of extinction.” If it’s a choice between that card and one that doesn’t articulate as large of a quantitative impact but which actually contains reasons why the impact occurs, I will almost certainly defer to the latter. The Alexander card, in particular, makes me want to pull my hair out. - Qualifications for evidence are important. I don’t just mean “our ev is from a professor, their’s is from the Tampa Tribune,” though that is important. I mean cards from the loony-tune fringe (Nyquist, the Worldnet idiots, uncredited people from blogs with names like assassinatebush.blogspot.com, cards about the time cube and other nonsense). I can be VERY easily persuaded to disregard evidence from these people. If you want to read cards from these folks, you need to prove either a) they’re not crazy or b) the way in which they’re crazy does not undermine their credibility on the subject that you’re using them for. 181 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet - A significant number of affs this year could be defeated by a minute of analytic arguments. If things don’t make sense, why not just point it out? Why not challenge the idea that a single terrorist strike will cause extinction? “They don’t have any evidence” does not automatically defeat an argument. It’s still on you to explain why your argument makes sense. I HAVE NOT SEEN A DEBATE THIS YEAR WHERE BOTH SIDES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELPED BY MAKING A COUPLE SMART, QUICK, ANALYTIC ARGUMENTS. - Speaker points. You start with a 27.5. I ‘ve only given one 29 this year, partly because I’m probably a little grumpier about points than some folks but mostly because I can’t judge a large cross-section of the folks who tend to be in the top 10 speakers at tournaments. If you debate well, I’m willing to roll out the points. - Topicality. This topic is tough. Usually I’m pretty good for the neg, but I’ve only voted on T once this year. This is because I find terms of art, definitions with intent to define, and interpretations grounded in something predictable for both sides to be far more important than “but we don’t get our relations DA.” - Counterplan theory. IMPORTANT - the argument “vote against the argument, not the team” is ALWAYS implied. In order to persuade me to vote on something, even if it’s dropped, you have to beat that argument. For example, I can’t really envision a situation where I would vote against the aff because they made a permutation. I’ve voted on conditionality bad a couple times, though I definitely think it’s good. PICs are obviously good. Consult/abnormal means counterplans are pretty clearly bad. As with all things, my opinions don’t matter too much – just debate it out. 182 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Panetta, Edward Georgia Theory: I enjoy judging debates in which debaters present competing alternatives policy alternatives. I would prefer that the arguments presented focus on the substantive issues raised by the topic. I am generally predisposed toward the affirmative when assessing a topicality argument. The affirmative has the right to define terms; the negative must demonstrate the definitions presented violate the field or grammatical context of the resolution. The only reasonable topicality ground on this topic is the implementation argument. For the most part, the negative is able to use the block to beat back theoretical claims made against counterplans. While I’m willing to listen to CP theory debates (and tend to be fairly conservative myself), I rarely vote affirmative on CP theory arguments. Affirmative teams need to work to clearly indicate the way(s) in which a counterplan has a solvency deficit or is disadvantageous. Argument Assessment: Left to my own devices I default to low impact/high probability arguments when they are contrasted with high impact/miniscule probability claims. When I ask for cards I’ll generally default to the reasoning imbedded in longer cards as compared to short lexis cards. Critiques: For a fruitful argument to take place, a set of untested assumption are accepted by (agreement on this condition usually takes place without argument). Generally, I don’t have a problem with the affirmative prescribing those assumptions. Despite my own predispositions, I vote for critique arguments. I’m more likely to vote for a critique if it is packaged in a way that provides a positive vision (alternative of some type). For me, a negative “Inround Discursive Abuse” is usually a suspect claim. Often such claims are made in relationship to the imprecise use of language by someone speaking at 200+ words-per-minute or involve a speech moment in which a debater does not have a range of rhetoric choices to draw from. I’m more susceptible to vote for discursive impacts that are more global in nature. Performance Debates: While these exchanges do not represent an argument (based on the traditional descriptors associated with this category of communication) I am still left to determine an outcome with a winner and a loser in the context of the debate setting. In such exchanges I am looking for cues as to how one might evaluate such a speech act. Left to my own devices, I’d impose a set of aesthetic and epistemological assumptions that I have worked with in my own professional life. 183 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Partlow, Sarah Idaho State Paradigm: I seek to evaluate the quality of argument in the debate. Generally, I will see myself as a policy maker. Left to my own devices, I will weigh the remaining case advantage versus the disads. The side with the larger advantage / least risk wins. I can be persuaded to change this perspective depending on the arguments advanced. If you engage in a framework debate and win that debate in the context of the round, I will use that framework to analyze the debate. Topicality: Debaters should debate topicality standards instead of just using the traditional code words "jurisdiction," "fairness," & "ground." You need to explain what your arguments mean and why they are important to your interpretation of the topic. The negative should provide specific examples of why the affirmative's interpretation of the topic is abusive and why the negative interpretation is good. Also, your definitions should be specific and support your argument. Theory: I enjoy good theory debate. Good theory debate involves well developed theoretical objections including warrants and reasons to vote. Debaters should slow down when reading theory arguments. If part of your theory argument doesn't make it on my flow because it was read at top speed or unclearly, I reserve the right to discount it in my decision. Theory debate must be line by line. If it is a theory block war with no application, I will not do the work for you unless forced. In that case, points will reflect my displeasure at the poor quality of debate. Counterplans: Need to be competitive - mutually exclusive or net beneficial. Be prepared to defend the theoretical grounds for your counterplan choices. Generally, all counterplans are theoretically acceptable unless proven otherwise in the debate. Kritiks: I hold kritiks to the same argumentative standard I would any other argument. Both the link and implications should be clearly debated. I find floating pics/no text to the alternative arguments persuasive against kritiks. I also find multiple alternatives (the negative has a cp, one or more kritik alternatives and the status quo) arguments persuasive. If you choose to run this type of strategy as a negative team, be prepared to defend it. Evidence: I prefer to read only the essential cards after the debate. However, I will read as much evidence as is necessary to make a fair and principled decision based on what was said in the debate. I think the debate is a persuasive activity which involves the debaters making arguments during the course of the debate so that I don't have to reconstruct the arguments that your authors are making after the round. I am particularly impressed when debaters, make well grounded arguments concerning the qualifications of the authors and the quality of the evidence read in the debate. I would like the author, their qualifications, and the date read into a debate round. Each card read in a debate should have a full citation available in the debate. If the full cite is not available, I might not-consider the evidence in my decision. Evidence challenges challenge the integrity of the debater accused. Have the original before making the challenge. Penalty is loss of debate and zero points for a successful challenge; the same for the team initiating it if unsuccessful. Style: Speed is fine, but clarity is key. If you watch me, you will be able to tell whether I understand the arguments that you are making. I am liable to discount arguments that I do not understand or can not flow. Tag team CX is OK., as long as it is not an excuse for one partner to dominate the debate. I enjoy the use of humor in debates. Also, I prefer that debaters relax during a debate round. Although I know that rudeness may be a result of stress, I think debate is a better experience for everyone involved if debaters show respect for other participants in the activity. 184 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Patrice, Joe I’ve heard second-hand that I’m considered very flow-centric as a judge (assuming flowing is an option in the round), which is probably true but before you hear this and then I get criticized for something after your round, I want to point out that I think I have a pretty good flow, but seriously, I’m a human being and not a machine. I catch almost everything but the best way to insure 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, 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. I listen to everything, but realistically note that in evaluation, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others. NOTE: Do not interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It is solely a threshold of believability issue. Just recognize it as a heads up that you have a burden to debate a little clearer and cleaner when arguing my dislikes. What are those likes and dislikes? When evaluating policy debates I note that often the impact cards were written in a different context than the link chain, so I want debaters giving analysis of the probability of the impacts and making me weigh the impacts in light of probability. For this reason I’m more concerned than some judges with internal links and uniqueness. For these reasons I am more compelled by specific case turns and interesting DA scenarios than Bush Bush Bush. Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. When evaluating discursive or framework level argumentation 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. Zizek explained it best when he criticized "Theory" for using too much jargon and therefore obfuscating its own arguments. 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. 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. 185 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Perkins, Dallas Harvard 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, probably because most teams run topical cases. I am a very tough sell on the argument that the aff is not allowed to do anything more than cap fossil fuels. 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. 186 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Peters, Donny Graduate Debate Assistant at Wayne State University Debated for Ball State University 97-01 Coached West Virginia 2001-2002 Coached Ball State 2003-2005 (NEDA and NPDA) Rounds on the topic: 22 I view my role in the debate round as an evaluator of argumentation. Thus, I am willing to listen and vote on any form of argumentation if it is well defended. I know that does not tell you much so I will provide a few details on arguments as well as some of my performance preferences. Critical Affirmatives: I have voted and will vote for critical affirmatives. I even ran a critical aff. during the Africa topic. However, if you intend to run a critical aff in front of me, you should provide a clear justification as to why I should vote affirmative. This should not be too much to ask, but I have judged a couple of critical affs this year that during the first cross examination the affirmative speaker was rather shady when asked why I should vote aff. To put it simply, if you want to run a critical aff in front of me, be willing to defend it. Theory: I really enjoy a good theory debate. I get annoyed by poor theory debates with generic arguments and little clash. If you intend to run theory arguments, provide arguments that are specifically related to the positions in the round. Topicality: I do not think Topicality is used nearly enough on the negative under this topic. I am willing to vote on potential abuse and jurisdiction arguments if the negative team wins these arguments. I am open to criticisms of topicality as long as the argument is a specifically applied to the position in the round. Cheap shots: I am less compelled than in the past to vote for these arguments. However, if the argument is dropped and you have to decide as to whether to go for the argument in the 2NR/2AR. You should provide a compelling reason for me to vote on the argument and spend a reasonable amount of time explaining it, not just a twenty second blip. Louisville (or similar projects): I am open to Louisville’s project, especially the most recent version that was used at Harvard and Cap. Cities. However, I am open to policy debate is good arguments. If you want to defend NDT style of debate, do not be afraid to do so. I think Louisville’s project is important because they are making the debate community defend the activity. I also think a lot of times Louisville wins round because other teams are not willing to defend their style. You will be more persuasive to me if you are willing to defend what you believe rather than develop a strategy to accommodate Louisville’s project. Stylistic preferences: I prefer to have a clearly structured flow. Thus, outlining your arguments rather than spewing out a bunch of arguments without structure will help me evaluate the round. For the final two rebuttal speeches make sure you incorporate impact analysis as well as impact comparisons. As I said in the beginning, I willing to hear any style of argumentation, if you have questions about my philosophy or specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. 187 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Petit, Louis To begin you should know that I do not have the best flow. I will do my best to get all of the arguments on my flow, but your help in slowing down on theory blocks will be much appreciated. It will not only be a benefit for me, but for you as well, if in the 2nr/2ar do comparative impact calculus work, i.e. compare the time frames and magnitudes of the arguments in the round. I will try my best to adjudicate fairly Counterplans-yeah, great idea if they are competitive, meaning if they have a net benefit that a permutation (do both) does not solve for. I think that agent counterplans are legitimate and a strategic negative argument, only if there is a clear net benefit. As for counterplan theory I do probably tend to error negative and find myself in favor of PIC’s. I think that they are strategic as long as there is a clear net benefit. As for the conditional/dispositional debate a I also tend to believe conditional copunterplans are legitimate. Topicality-I am not a big fan of T debates, but I will listen to them. I will however enjoy the debate more if it is a well constructed violation with a good standards debate. That means a good standards and interpretation debate is essential to win the argument. Clear voting issues that highlighted both in the block and 2nr is very important, I need more than just a simple “ground loss” or “fairness” claim. Kritiks-Well I would prefer a counterplan/politics debate, but I do not mind a critique round. I think a good critique needs to have an alternative that solves. I do not like the critique that simple endorses a social change or is mere rejection of the affirmative. In some sense I believe the alternative functions similar to a counterplan. To be fair I will admit I am not the best read of critical lit, so please do not assume I know the in and out’s of author of any given critique. Believe that K’s cause social Why you will win- Impact analysis/assessment. Do it because it is a must in front of me. I really do not like to intervene but if loose ends are left in the final rebuttals I might find myself adding to the debate. If you think that this judging philosophy sounds a bit bias towards policymaking, then your right. I prefer to watch and judge policy style arguments, such as DA’s, CP’s, and Solvency debates. 188 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Pfister, Damien Pittsburgh Background: I debated for the University of Alabama. I have coached at Marist College, Pace University, and am now an assistant coach and graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. The previous two years, I worked with the New York Urban Debate League. General Approach: I do not have a “paradigm.” I always have believed that debate is not for the judges but for the debaters; thus, I will try to leave most of my theoretical and argumentative predispositions at the door. I am willing to moderate the debate in any way that is well argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I like creative approaches and encourage them. This does not mean that I love the performative turn in debate—but I am generally open to new things and new ideas. My reputation is undeservedly as a “K Hack.” I get very frustrated when I have to decipher the super-dense academic writing of pretentious critical authors (of course, I feel the same way about non-critical authors.) Also, EVERY debate round comes down to impact assessment. Few people perform their realization of this. You will get better points and probably the win if you do this well. I am unsympathetic to debaters that spend four seconds and seven words on an argument and expect to win the debate on that issue. If you feel there is an important argument, you should invest some time in it. I have a hard time hearing cites (author/date) sometimes because people blur over this while reading—try to “punch” the cite clearly and loudly. The Affirmative: I like: 1AR’s that are offensive (as in turns, not slurs). Stand-up 2AC’s. I don’t like: Affirmatives that spend 2-3 minutes answering topicality (if you need to spend that long on it, you ain’t topical and should change your case). “Performative contradiction” arguments (if something contradicts, grant a few things out and figure out how to use it to your benefit.) Try not to be delusional or megalomaniacal. I generally think this is good advice. The Negative: I like: Specific, consistent strategies. I feel comfortable judging politics disadvantages and critical theory, and see the utility and necessity of both. Regional overviews are incredibly helpful. I don’t like: Negatives that conceive “critiques” as a distinct argument type. All argument is critique. 2NR’s that don’t know how to collapse and tell a cohesive story. Topicality: I have a pretty high threshold for voting negative on topicality (you should provide concrete examples of abuse, have a good list of cases that meet and don’t meet your interpretation, and indicate how the aff might have been able to write their plan topically.) 2AR’s: if the first time your “real” T story comes out is in the last speech, you’re in trouble. Debates about the ethical nature of definitions should most certainly involve an assessment of normative reasons vs. ground reasons. I do generally believe that the affirmative should affirm the resolution in some meaningful way. I am wary of the argument that your morality makes you topical. Theory: I really have few theoretical predispositions. I am fairly agnostic about counterplan theory—primarily because I see both sides on most issues and have trouble deciding which one is “true.” I think that makes me a better theory judge, however. The most important thing is examples and concrete abuses and impacts. But that’s nothing new…Very few judges LIKE theory, and I put myself in that category. I guess I err negative on theoretical issues but am open to being persuaded either way. For ----’s sake, please slow down on theory arguments. Evidence: I am resisting the impulse to abandon long cards. Short cards won’t get you too far with me, and I am comfortable saying “this card doesn’t say much with the sentence fragments you happened to underline.” I am more inclined to do that when the debaters point that out (though they usually do not.) I will read evidence after the round if it is referenced in the last two speeches. One of my pet peeves as a judge goes like this: In the speech: “Read the Jones 99 evidence after the round!” and when the judge calls for the evidence it becomes “I meant to say Roberts, not Jones,” or “Here are those 3 pieces of Jones evidence I referenced in my speech.” Evidence challenges are incredibly serious. The challenging team must have the original and immediately stop the debate. Debaters that hint at evidence challenges or accidentally say something resembling an evidence challenge and back down will receive low points. Proclivities and Rants: People underutilize cross-examination. I find purely informational cross-x’s incredibly boring. I might leave the room if witnessing cx is a waste of my time. Please entertain me. Funny people = good speaker points. I will tell you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot flow you. You had darn well better be nice to each other. Debate is the best activity in the entire world, and you had better not make me leave the room thinking otherwise. Pee before the round. Stop stealing prep time. It’s a nasty habit. This is REALLY annoying me more and 189 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet more. When you are done prepping, be ready to speak. None of this “oh, just :15 seconds more” crap. Long carded overviews annoy me. I have decided I will NOT take out another sheet of paper to flow them on—you have chosen to screw up the flow and you will suffer the consequences. This style of overview is for people who cannot do lineby-line.  Explain your acronyms. I’ll probably ask if you don’t. I will try to be very thoughtful and conscientious as your judge. 190 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Pointer, Steve Gonzaga 5 years judging, 18 rounds on topic My overall judging philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. Debating well is vastly more important to me than debating a certain set of arguments or a certain style. A couple of caveats: I have a pretty high standard for what constitutes an argument, especially in theory debates. If your theory blocks consist of 6-10 word blips and you read these at me, we’re going to have a problem. Please explain yourselves, if the argument is important. Also, just reading theory blocks at each other (or any blocks, for that matter) is really uninteresting to me. Actually engaging the other team’s arguments helps. If you make a theory debate messy, I can’t guarantee that the decision will make any sense. Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. If you’re blippy or unclear, you’re going to be in trouble. As important as the technical line-by-line aspects of framework debates are, the explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position is just as important. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices. I’m not the fastest flow in the world. Be wary of reading theory blocks, short cards, or analytics at top speed. Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. This is generally a problem in K debates, where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Two or three good cards will almost always beat ten bad ones. Even politics and econ uniqueness cards should (ideally) have warrants/reasons in them. Don’t highlight out the warrants of your cards, you should read the parts of the text that are important to the argument. Don’t expect me to reconstruct the parts of the card you didn’t read. Rebuttals are of huge importance to me. There are a couple of things that absolutely have to happen for you to win my ballot. First, people have to make some decisions, hopefully smart ones. I reward intelligent, strategic rebuttals. Extend fewer arguments, but extend the right ones. Explain how I should evaluate the round, because anything can happen if you leave it up to me. 191 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Pomorski, Mike Catholic Objective:1 Years coaching: 1.5 Rounds judged this year: 12 (Kings and Liberty) Voting record (affirmative/negative): 6/6 Average speaker points given: 27.3 Consensual Frameworks: John Vermitsky suggested that judges include in their philosophy whether they were willing to agree to Louisville’s framework if agreed to by both sides (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200511/0034.html). I would be more than happy to agree to judge in that framework (or any other) provided it is agreed to by both teams and other teams at the tournament are held harmless (i.e. no “everyone gets a 30” paradigm). I will do whatever I can to assist in framework implementation if you would like. A more “traditional” philosophy: 2 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 (as historically defined) 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 it after the debate, so act accordingly. However, please keep in mind that I can call for evidence and I can’t really call for your flow (or at least I wouldn’t be comfortable doing so). Slow down. 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. www.debateresults.com, October 25, 2005. These are preferences and slight biases only. Also, I am pretty sure I would have hated judging myself when I debated, which might be a tad hypocritical, but there you go. 2 1 www.debateresults.com, October 25, 2005. These are preferences and slight biases only. Also, I am pretty sure I would have hated judging myself when I debated, which might be a tad hypocritical, but there you go. 2 192 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Powers, Shawn I’ll keep it simple. Keep arguments require good warrants or good cards to back them up. The more warrants you make/your cards make, the more likely I am to buy whatever your selling. Voting issues are not voting issues unless there is a substantive warrant, that makes sense to me, extended and explained. Despite what some may think, I am fairly neutral regarding the benefits/disadvantages of PICS and conditionality. If the debate is critical (critique-al), know that the evidence your reading does not register as quickly or as well as traditional policy-literature – in some cases, you may need to do some further explanation to help me grasp the intricacies of your argument. Feel free to ask questions. Have fun. 193 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Quinn, Robbie Theory: I have no prejudices to any argument type. I’m sensitive to the recent need to provide defenses of types of debate as those styles and topics are being presented, but nevertheless I’m open to any type. I determine which way to evaluate T based on who most convinces me of the superiority of a certain way to evaluate T. I’ve been recently concerned that basing T on competing interpretations, while it does make T very strategic, makes T lose some of its overall value. At the same time, reasonability is a vague idea to me if not well qualified. As for CP theory, the same paradigm applies. I place value on definitional questions (such as what a PIC is) as much as why a particular argument hurts debate. While I wouldn’t object outright to a theory argument that new cases at the NDT are bad, personally I feel that newness will always be a part of the excitement of the NDT and I’m not sure my vote really does much there (although I guess I’m open to be corrected on this thought). Topic Specific Arguments: I explained T above, but I don’t think I’ve judged a round where T was in the 2NR. A note on DA’s. I’ve subsequently realized that I haven’t kept up with new ways people debate DA’s, especially politics. I welcome them, even politics, but if you want me to judge uniqueness or questions of offense/defense a certain way, I would encourage you to be explicit about how and why to do so. Critiques/Deontology: I don’t really like Deontology. I think critiques have the potential to be debated differently than CP’s or DA’s even though lots of people treat them like any other argument in the way they describe them. I do enjoy these debates, but I have to admit that there’s much that I don’t know about, so don’t assume I’m versed in the language or literature of particular authors. The best critique debates I’ve seen have involved a detailed analysis of the case and its structure, language, and assumptions. The worst I’ve seen have involved unexplained blanket statements peppered with clichés and a disregard for the role of the judge. Evidence: I am generally concerned by debaters who rely on “cross-apply my evidence” to make an argument instead of explaining the claim itself or offering anecdotal or empirical support for an argument. If you want me to prefer your evidence to their assertions or to their evidence, I must be given reasons to prefer your evidence combined with analytical explanation of the arguments central to the debate. Breadth is not always better than depth, but I’ve found some debates just too big for my taste. If you really want me to read every card after the round or turn a debate into “an evidence debate” without insulating it with skilled argumentation, I hope you realize you’re ceding your ability to control the decision. Style: I like humor, stories, and creative uses of historical examples. Sometimes I feel that heated debates when debaters unnecessarily raise their voices remind me of tourists who yell their native language in a foreign country when they’re trying to find the bathroom. 194 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Ramachandrappa, Naveen Topicality: Generally speaking I hold a strict view of topicality. You either soundly meet the negative definition or have a counter-interpretation with reasons to prefer. I would normally say that I have a negative bias on topicality, with two exceptions. First, I can be persuaded that overlimiting is more of a danger than underlimiting on this topic (energy). Second, if your interpretation excludes cases that are strongly grounded in the literature, then my bias is against that interpretation, unless arguments are advanced for why the plan, as opposed to the case, is not topical. Specification: Specification arguments are likely to be voting issues if the negative asks the affirmative in crossexamination and the affirmative refuses to answer or makes up distinctions such as "only for your disadvantages, but not for your counterplan." If you do not ask in crossexamination, then I find it very unlikely I would ever vote on a specification argument. For me, the point of specification (and probably topicality) is to establish ground or rectify affirmative violations of negative ground. Counterplans: I generally think the negative has the right to run their counterplan dispositionally or conditionally and the counterplan can be plan-inclusive. As a debater I rarely considered that any counterplan was abusive to the affirmative. As a judge and coach, I find myself rethinking that stance somewhat. I find myself voting affirmative when the negative presents a disadvantage as a net benefit to a counterplan simply because the counterplan only links partially less. For example, affirmative ratifies the ICC and the negative counterplans to rafity the CEDAW and claims politics as a net benefit. Critiques: I err for the affirmative on critique arguments. This is because I do not think the alternative solves much of anything, the case simply outweighs, or because negative arguments do not reach the threshold of a credible argument. This does not doom a negative team advancing a critique, because the affirmative may not make the right arguments to demonstrate what is above mentioned. Also, a developed and case specific critique of the affirmative can overwhelm a general bias that I may have against these arguments. It is possible to win enough offense and enough specific arguments about the plan, that the plan is worse than a mitigated alternative. Critical Affirmatives: I err for the negative. You must credibly claim to meet every word in the resolution, have a plan, and not sing or dance. I have generally found affirmatives that rely on critiques of disadvantages to be very unpersuasive. Disadvantages: The affirmative does not always need to have offense against a disadvantage, unless they are winning nothing of the case. Politics disadvantages are for the most part very dumb, but a fair number of times the affirmative does not adequately point this out. Case Arguments: Along with a strong disadvantage, I consider this to be the ideal type of negative argument and strategy, just ahead of a good counterplan strategy. For the affirmative, I also consider a strong case very important. 195 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Flowing: I flow on the computer. My computer has frozen once and once I accidentally closed my flow without saving it. I only mention this is as a disclaimer in case something goes wrong. If this worries you, know that the benefits outweigh the small risk of problems. Separate from that, I view the flow as more of a guide when making decisions than as a strict format. I think about my decision in my head first and then if I find something I need to resolve, then I look to the flow. I believe this means my decisions tend to slightly reflect the "truth" of arguments and quality of evidence more than a very strict account of the flow. The flow still matters a very great deal; I just think in close debates the factor that sometimes tips my decision is whether or not your arguments are good, not necessarily the technical presentation. Speaker Point Deductions: I stop prep time when I believe your team to be done prepping, not necessarily when a debater say "ready." If you are egregious about continuing to prep after you or your partner has said ready, then I will deduct speaker points. If you are particularly unclear in reading evidence, I will deduct points. 196 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Rao, Anand How to use this judging philosophy: If I were coaching a team to debate in front of me, I would not likely change their standard 1N/2A strategy. I am open to most any argument, and am ready to go along with any strategy you choose (in other words, while I have never voted on `int'l fiat illegitimate', that doesn't mean it is not worth your while to argue it in the 2AC). The most significant area of adaptation would be in the rebuttals, working hard to tie up loose ends, specify which evidence is key, and give me a clear story. What you should know about me: I do not like to reconstruct the debate, and rely heavily upon the stories told in the last rebuttals. I rarely call for more than a few key pieces of evidence, and will focus on evidence that has been heavily debated and discussed in the round. I prefer that quals are given, and full cites must be made available upon request. I will let you know if you are speaking too quietly, or if I am having trouble understanding you, but I will usually only do so once early in the debate- it is your responsibility to remain clear. I have not had any trouble keeping up in the rounds I have judged this yearspeed is fine, as long as you are clear, and work, throughout the debate, to tell a clear story and discuss the arguments' implications and interactions. There is little, if any, I would ever prohibit from a debate- including arguments or stylistic differences. Tag-team c-x, or partner interruptions are fine, but may result in lower speaker points, depending upon the situation. I will evaluate any argument presented in the round, and have voted on various theory and kritik arguments. My strongest preference is for a debate free of rude or sniping remarks. Be friendly and have fun. Theory: I would never claim to be a theory expert, but I rarely have a problem evaluating a debate based upon theoretical issues. I will rarely vote on a theory argument simply because it has been undercovered, dropped or mishandled. Clear evidence of abuse is necessary, and if you want me to take the argument seriously, then be sure to devote a reasonable amount of time to its development in your last rebuttal. Kritiks: No problem with the strategic use of kritiks in a debate. The problem I have encountered is when the implications of the kritik are not evaluated in policy terms (my preference), or, more importantly, are not given a fair comparative assessment to the traditional policy arguments that remain in the round. You do not have to go solely for the kritik in the last rebuttal, in my view, but you must clearly reconcile its position within the debate. Counterplans: No problem with most counterplans run on this topic. Biggest problem I have found is in the comparisons made between the C/P and the aff in the last rebuttal- spell out (aff) why the counterplan can't solve as well (give specifics), and explain why (neg) why limited C/P solvency is enough to win. Be realistic- don't overclaim your position, but instead give me your bestcase/ worst case assessment of the debate. 197 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Register, David CAVEATS: I flow with pen and paper. This means that if your arguments are blippy, there won’t be much on my flow, and your speaker points will not be good. It also means that if you have an extensive overview for a position, you should let me know beforehand, so that my flow doesn’t get crammed together and messy. Also, after recent events this Fall, I would prefer that you not eat (nor destroy in other ways) the other team’s evidence. Also, no fires during the round, please. TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS: If the aff chooses to answer T in a traditional fashion (WM,CI,RTP, etc.), I like to consider T an a priori voting issue. I evaluate the link(violation), and then look to the advantages/disadvantages of the competing interpretations to decide the argument. I will entertain non-traditional answers to T, and I may even be persuaded to think other issues should come first, but your arguments will need to be well developed and compelling. DISADS: Impact evaluation/comparison is good. Telling me about your disad is probably better than handing me a stack of cards. COUNTERPLANS: I tend to lean aff on conditionality bad debates. I think debates are more fun and more fair when negatives are responsible for their counterplans/counteradvocacies, so if I‘m in the back of your room I would suggest offering the aff an opportunity to stick you with your counterplan/counteradvocacy. KRITIKS: If you make an argument, I’ll probably get it. If you run a criticism in the traditional line-by-line fashion, I will flow it and probably even understand what you’re getting at. If you choose a non-traditional avenue, such as a performance, I will probably write a few things down and I will probably get your argument. Whatever the case, explaining you argument is always better for you than handing me a stack of cards. THE REV: I hear this argument a lot. I see teams answer it poorly almost as many times as I see it run, and I find myself voting for it regularly, although I don’t particularly like the argument. OTHER ARGUMENTS: I think debaters decide the debate. If you have an argument that another team hears and thinks is dated/conspiracy theory/West Georgia-ish, and you are prepared for an author qualification debate and have some decent ev…then why not. I value the game of debate, and I like to be entertained. 198 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Regnier, Jason Such an oddity to be on the other side of one of these things... "My Philosophy" "Can an *ass* be tragic? To perish under a burden one can neither bear nor throw off? The case of the philosopher." - Friedrich Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols" "Philosophy, as I have so far understood and lived it, means living voluntarily among ice and high mountainsseeking out everything strange and questionable in existence, everything so far placed under a ban by morality. Long experience, acquired in the course of such wanderings in what is forbidden, taught me to regard the causes that so far have prompted moralizing and idealizing in a very different light from what may seem desirable: [...] "We strive for the forbidden": in this sign my philosophy will triumph one day, for what one has forbidden so far as a matter of principle has always been" - Nietzsche, "Ecce Homo" "Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," "absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing *something*, are supposed to be lacking" - "Genealogy of Morals" "I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have choas in yourselves." - "Thuse Spoke Zarathustra" Ah yes, but what does this *mean*? The answer to that, my dear debaters, is beyond me. Perhaps a better question would be, "And?" To which I would be forced to respond: And I don't "flow" in the sense that it is understood by most, but instead do take (extensive) notes in a noncolumned and non-ink-oriented way; and I avoid the urge to call for evidence after the round as it tastes better to hear the arguments themselves debated; and I tend to get more the slower you go; and I feel that the distinction between "policy" and "critique" debate is arbitrary, capricious, and curt but, unfortunately, typical; and just as I dislike stale bread, I also dislike stale debate-spice it up, do the forbidden, DANCE WITH A CHAIR IF THATS WHAT THE MUSE TELLS YOU TO DO; and each of us has a poet within us; and to the contrary of what people will say, "Gotta Have a Plan" is *not* a good argument; and Perms are the trick of a children's magician-if you watch with a little bit of care, you will see the sleight of hand; and if I were an angel being blown backward into the future, I would see Fort Hays State University, Bill Shanahan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Buju Banton, Vine Deloria Jr, time circling back, William Spanos, Gayatri Spivak, the blood-stained corpse of an American Buffalo, Felix Guattari, Nancy Morejon, and Giorgio Agamben; and... 199 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Repko, Will Michigan State 1. I'm not totally non-intervention man, as I may have been dubbed in the past. Much of how I judge is the same, and is clarified below. But not all -- and you deserve to know this. 2. In general, the reason that I have shifted from this stance is twofold: a) Over the course of time -- not one round, or one topic -- I think that a model that forces the Aff to refute: 1. all specific hits versus their case. 2. the generics built into a given topic 3. hyper-generic substantive args 4. defending the "certainty" of plan vis-a-vis any neg alt that suspends this certainty (however temporarily). 5. roughly 50 political philosophies 6. roughly 3 projects, AND: 7. any representation made by the Aff is a poor model. It's quite unfair to the Aff. and -- most importantly -- people can and do "get away" with the enormous shortcuts offered by the "Neg case" (categories 2-7 above). For sure this means we are learning less about the topic. I also believe we are learning less overall -- mostly because the "neg case" does not cause a 1:1 shift education to the generics... on balance, it enables tons of apathy. b) give people an inch, they take a mile. To me, it is noteworthy (and frightening) that the explosion in neg winning percentages from 2000-2004 was accompanied by a palpable decline in the quality and specificity of neg research & preparation. What it took to win a neg debate in the era immediate prior to that stretch was considerably more effort, and considerably better engagement of the opponent. I have often thought that this may just be me "looking back with fondness on the golden days"... Except -- 2000-4 were more golden for our program... It was simply an era when people learned a lot less about the topic... I consistently release judging philosophies making clear that I'm theoetically disinclined to vote for strategies designed to allow the neg to extend only one sheet of paper in the 2NR (absent T). The prohibition is never absolute, but clear. Yet, negs consistently go for hyper-generics in front of me, hoping to eek something out of the corners of my judge philosophy without fundamentally engaging the topic or opposition.... inch... mile. Accordingly -1. no sequence of events can transpire where the neg can win on the consultation cplan. The 2AC will receive higher points if they pretend that the argument did not exist. It is not part of the curriculum of modern debate. I am serious. 2. ditto for A-Spec. This includes the "tricky", but utterly comical args embedded within A-Spec. these are also not part of the curriculum of modern debate. 3. I won't decrease your pts if you introduce these args in the 1NC. If you extend them, I will. I w/n be mad at you if I am on a panel. 200 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 4. I am not as flatly opposed to the K -- although some of the args stated above are part of the reason that I err "policy" on the framework questions. In general, the K has been a fairly large setback for topic-specific discussion and depth of preparation. A team which worked these args into their framework blocks would increase their chances of getting my ballot. 5. More on the K. a) I am way better for the "alt/link to Aff" genre of K's than the project or "crazy as shit" genres of K. b) I just think the modern K teams need to be much, much better (for me) on the question of WHY THEY WIN. Let me explain. If I handed in an academic paper, people could CRITIQUE many parts of the academic paper without NEGATING the central thesis of the paper, or giving the paper a failing grade. Yes, maybe the Aff's term paper should not have used red ink or represented China in a certain way... Grrrrr-eat!!!... Why do you win ?... What makes these imperfections the central question ?... 6. The rest of my judge philosophy stays the same as it has been -- central tenets being: a) theory is a question of offense-defense. b) coverage matters. c) comparison matters. Let me know if you have additional questions. Best, Will 201 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Richey, Kate My judge philosophy is to be absolutely fair. 1) I'm a good flow and give almost no leeway to 2ar/2nr's who make shit up that wasn't in the rest of the debate. 2) I'll read your cards but I won't let them stand in for your args/explanations. 3) I will listen to and evaluate anything - i have experience with both policy and critical arguments. I will vote along a wide ideological continuum - i am really watchful about letting my personal political beliefs interfere with judging a debate round so feel free to be as far right or far left as your little heart desires. 4) Here is a short listing of what I have discovered I like and what I do not like: What i like: Good, specific case debates Detailed impact calculus Creative counterplans Smart, specific kritik debates Funny Framework debates What i dislike: Long overviews Blippy theory Generic, crappy kritik debates Allusions to past debate rounds or past debaters, i.e. "of course this card is good, <insert team name here> won the NDT with it" 5) **What bothers me most in debates: I have already said this above but i just wanted to repeat - everyone has that one thing that irritates them about judging so here is mine. If you are a 2NC that goes for the K(or anything else for that matter) I will not pull out an extra piece of paper for your overview - because it should never be that long. Trust me, this is for your own good, if you spend more than 45 seconds on an overview you are going to concede some long, crappy, irrelevent zizek or derrida or rorty or murray card at the bottom of the flow that i will then be forced to read all three pages of and then i'll be pissed and blame it on you. So just don't. 202 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Rief, John J. University of Pittsburgh Years Coaching/Judging: Started this year. Rounds on this topic: 6 as of Wake. Judging Philosophy: Debate is a game that we play because we think it is fun. It is not my job to enforce a particular set of rules while adjudicating this game except time limits and some notion of coherent dialectical exchange. If you speak within the time allotted, you make arguments that I can understand, and in some loose sense clash with the other team, you have met the requirements of this game in my eyes. Remember that clash means something along the lines of answering the arguments presented by the other team. If you drop key arguments, please expect that I will be mentioning these when I give my decision and that you probably will not be winning my ballot. Debate is more and more a game which must include a discussion of the rules by the debaters themselves. Rules, or more appropriately the contingently agreed upon practices in particular debates, are really up to the debaters to determine and defend. Call this the “clash of civilizations” or the ruination of the activity, but debate is now primarily about not only the resolution but also competing frameworks for evaluating that resolution and even constituting the boundaries of debate in general. In order to debate in front of me effectively given the stance taken above, you should probably be able to posit a defense of your view of debate. Will this be necessary in every round? No. Often, there is a consensus among the debaters before the round concerning the way that the round will be evaluated. I will abide by this agreement. Is it something that successful debaters in this activity are prepared to do? Yes, invariably. Does all of this mean that I think every argument in debate is equally good? No. Different argumentative forms, styles, and methods have achieved varying levels of success in this community given the fact that some are more effective than others. It is my job to determine how successfully you have deployed your arguments vis-à-vis the arguments proposed by your opponents. As I have already said, you should clash, but keep in mind that clash means a lot of things. Clashing on the framework level is still clash, and I can honestly say I have no predilection toward a particular view of debate at this given time. Provide a persuasive defense of your view of debate and the arguments you think you are winning in light of this view and you will probably win. What does this mean in terms of the various debate arguments which are often covered in judging philosophies (T, kritiks, disads, counter-plans, theory, etc.)? It means that I am ready and willing to listen to any of these arguments and evaluate them based on the way that they are developed and answered within the give debate round. Whether these arguments are objectively good or bad is really not up to me, is it? You will run them anyway and I will inevitably end up having to judge rounds at any given tournament in which all of these arguments are utilized. They all have their appropriate uses as well as strategic benefits and shortcomings. Run what you want to run, I just don’t care. Perhaps I can frame this differently by answering questions from a hypothetical debater: Will you vote for a politics disad? Yes, under the right conditions. Will you vote on a PIC? Yes, under the right conditions. Will you vote on topicality? Yes, under the right conditions. Will you vote on the k? Yes, under the right conditions. Will you vote on performance (if that term really means anything truly distinct)? Yes, under the right conditions. Will you vote on theory? Yes, under the right conditions. What constitutes the “right conditions”? Well, the right 203 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet conditions are a mixture of the contingent elements of the particular debate round. This probably includes an evaluation of which framework ultimately wins the day and whether you have done the “better debating” in the round. “Better debating” is determined through an evaluation of the persuasiveness of your arguments, the strategic value and deployment of your arguments, and your ability to respond and adapt to the arguments of your opponent. I don’t think I can give a clearer answer than this. Finally, please ask any questions you may have. I’m not sure how well I’ll be able to answer them, but I will do my best. I’ll see you out there, or maybe not. 204 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Rollins, Joel Speaker points. My speaker points have inflated over the years. I suppose I have adapted more to you than you have to me. However, I start with a 28. Generally you get extra points if you (1) resolve arguments, (2) make good arguments, (3) are persuasive, (4) give me pen time on analytical arguments, (5) read good evidence, (6) are humorous, (7) are good at asking and answering cx questions, (8) are creative. Generally you lose points if you (1) are unclear, (2) run time sucks, (3) make incomplete arguments, (4) race through analytical answers, (5) don't ask or answer your own cx questions or give your own speeches, (6) don't resolve arguments and just extend cards and tag lines in rebuttals. Make good arguments. An argument is not a citation and tag line. A good argument is complete, coherent, and adequately developed in its initial presentation. Call Crap. If you are unable to conceptualize an argument in its initial presentation, if the initial link story is non-existent, if the internal link evidence is inadequate, or if the initial impact evidence is vacuous or without direction, it is not difficult to convince me to ignore those arguments. At a minimum you should reserve the right to future answers. Speak comprehensibly. Most debates are too fast and unfocused, and many of you are incomprehensible, even those of you getting high speaker awards! This I don't understand. I enjoy fast debates when there is clarity, explanation, and development of arguments. Rapid communication when it primarily serves to impede adequate explanation or is just a strategic tool to keep teams off your "real arguments" violates ethical principles of communication. Your opponents and I should be able to understand your arguments and evidence when you present them in your speech. By the way, you can ask me if I understood an argument. Assess evidence. Most of what passes for “evidence” isn’t. Policy makers or academics would not take seriously what passes for evidence in “our game”. Evidence needs: (1) claim, (2) warrant, (3) grounding/data. Most "evidence" in “our game” has been highlighted down to a point where it lacks this third qualifier here. I do not tend to read a great number of cards after a debate, but I do give much more weight to those who actually debate the evidence and extend it by cite and explain its relevance. Establish your own criteria for the evaluation of arguments. What are we doing? Should debate be an activist project? Why do we need plans? Should we dichotomize the plan from its advantages/justifications/rhetoric? Why are new arguments bad for a particular debate? Is the permutation adopted? Why should I be a utilitarian? By the way, most "Kritikers" fail to establish the requisite criteria for me to engage in a particular project, and by the same token most 1AC's don't establish a reason why I should vote affirmative. Do your own debating . . . don't expect me to do it for you. I do not like to intervene but I do when I have no options. Defend your paradigm/assumptions. Don't assume anything from a theoretical perspective, both in "debate terms" or philosophical terms. Identify pressure points and focus the debate. Condensing down to a few issues is better than extending 20. Scratch at an argument's weakness until it bleeds, even if your claim is "just a press." If there's no internal link to the DA, you can argue that there is ZERO risk and that the CP is a made-up bunch of hooey. Other things you want to know. Absent debate on the issue, I protect the 2NR from new 2AR's but not new 1AR's. You don't need offense to win. A non-unique DA or one without an internal link is not a net-benefit. By the same token, you don't need an alternative to an affirmative with a flawed methodology. Topicality: Debating topicality is a lost art. Counterplans: Non-topicality is the best check for Plan Inclusive Counterplans. Intrinsicness permutations are legitimate when they check extra-competitive counterplans. Cross Examination: I often flow it, but bring concessions into your speeches. 205 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet I will vote on almost anything. For example, I regularly vote for objectivism and coercion type arguments even though I personally think they are theoretically and morally bankrupt. A-Spec of I-Spec are tough sells, however, and put me in a bad mood. Performance type Affs: These need to provide good, defensible ground to your opponents. In the days of yore, inherency should have provided some defensible ground to the Negative. These Affs. likewise, need to identify some defensible ground for your opponent. 206 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Rubino, Kathryn I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I’ll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round. Simply put the debate is about impacts- weigh them, their likelihood and magnitude and we’re doing fine. I think it is the debater’s responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. However, I recognize the time constraints in a round and will read cards that receive a prominent place in rebuttals. But I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them. As a side note, I rarely flow author names so don’t just extend the author’s name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to. I’ll listen to whatever people want to say- but you should probably know my dispositions ahead of time. Be warned however, I have voted against my preferences many times and anticipate doing it again in the future. I like kritik/advocacy debate. That being said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear them. Part of what makes kritiks interesting is the variety and depth of responses available. To get my vote here I generally need a clear story on the link and implication levels. I enjoy framework debates- debating about debate is fun- and as a bonus I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers- just arguments that can be made. I rejoice the return of topicality! And I have no problem voting on topicality, even if I don’t agree with a particular interpretation, but I do think a T story needs to be clear and technically proficient. DAs are fine, and the more case specific the better. I think internal consistency is key here, and as a result I’m very sympathetic to arguments that poke holes in that. And the older I get the more I dislike politics disads- they just don’t make sense to me- more of a hodgepodge of cards then an argument. I think the second rebuttals need to be extra clear on the story here so I know exactly what I’m voting for. I don’t mind listening to PICs or other interesting CPs, and I often feel they’re good way to test the validity of a plan. However, I am open to theoretical debate here and I’m willing to vote on it. I will vote on the easy way out of a round- I don’t try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I’m just adjudicating a game- a fun game that can teach stuff and be pretty sweet- but still a game. So enjoy your round, do your job and I will too. 207 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Russell, Jason I've been judging college debate for five years. I participated in college debate for three. I'm not sure if this means something, but it could. I guess it just let's you know that I've been around the block a few times. I have been mostly out of the activity since 2000, so if there is some radically new innovation in debate that you think has occurred in the last couple of years that I may not be ready to know about (I doubt this, but...) you should maybe ease me in. In general, I try to check my predispositions at the door. This leaning will likely checker each of my more particular responses. Theory - It's OK. I think people should have ground. I am prone to voting on topicality if it is won, but I have been convinced before that restictive notions of the topic are bad ("t = genocide" and the like). C-P theory discussions are likely only voters until the other team says they're not or if there is some real, demonstrable in-round ground lost. Vote against the arg, not the team usually works for me. Often if one loses their C-P, they're gonna lose anyhow. I am finding it increasingly hard to flow people on theory. I don't think this is my fault as much as it is theirs. Don't make this a problem for yourself; give me pen time. Framework Questions - I don't have a problem with them per se, but I have been convinced that the way they have been deployed destracts from necessary neg ground. I will resort to making policies unless told that I am not to, at which point the two teams can either debate about who I am and what I should be doing, or the neg may agree and engage, and I'm fine with that too. Basically, this is your game and you're making the rules for me. I will evaluate the debate by whatever criteria I am persuaded to use by the two teams evaluating said criteria. In the end, this means if you want me to vote for the ICC because of you poem or counterfactual or dance with the chair, I will do it if you beat the other team's arguments that I shouldn't look at the debate that way. On the flip-side if you really want to run your bush d/a versus the sychronized swimming routine you have just witnessed, you should defend that policymaking is the way I should look at the debate. Oh, and I vote on K's (or whatever you want to call them) on the neg. And sometimes for the aff. If they win them and all. Style - I will reward debaters for being A) funny - if you are good at it - and B) insightful - if you are good at it. What does this mean? If you make good jokes, of which I will be the final arbiter, you will get good points. If you make good decisions/notice things in the debate that others don't/set up your args well in the c-x/generally sound smart, you will get good points. Simply reading your overviews and slamming me with cards/blocks is likely to result in around a 27. Don't be sexist/racist/violent. I will reserve the right to box your ears if you do. Basically, I don't know if there is an argument around that I can say I haven't or wouldn't vote on. And, while I know that true objectivity is probably a sham, I would say that the only real bias I try to have is toward my flow and the arguments I've recorded as being made in the round. Outside of that, it's all fair game. 208 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Saindon, Brent Note: At this point, I’m still struggling with who I wish to be as a part of the debate. The following represents my reflections up to this point on my role in the debate. My role is obviously up for debate; I wish to only provide a baseline for us to proceed. Over the last three or four years, I have been involved with different forms of experimentation with the line by line and the flow. Staying within the spirit of that endeavor, I will not flow; I will instead take notes. Although I do believe in the necessity of being responsive to arguments, I do not believe that responsiveness should neither necessarily be decided by specificity of reference, nor by the form of prepositional argument. Alternative styles of persuasion and argument are all appropriate and debatable. Speeches do not have to follow a mapped-out order. However, do be aware that different forms of argument will have different thresholds in terms of communicability, both to me and to the other team. How one orients the topic is a central concern for me. The topic hails all of us. The question is: how do/should we/you/I respond? How is the topic important, and towards what end? Consequently, I see the topic to be intimately bound up in questions of politics. What style of politics does a given interpretation of the topic allow/prefigure? What is left out and why? What options are viable for us to engage the topic, both in this community and in a particular debate (which inevitably includes how the topic is debatable for each side)? I don’t really believe in a categorical distinction between types of arguments. Each argument has its own constraints and limitations, though they may or may not correspond to traditional categories of uniqueness, links, germaneness, impacts, and/or alternatives. I have varying degrees of familiarity with different literature bases, and inevitably find some more persuasive than others, but I try not to pre-determine arguments that I will or will not listen to in advance. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask before the debate. 209 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Samuels, Phil. My voting record up to Northwestern (55 Rounds)Aff 47% Neg 53%-in out rounds (9 Rounds) Neg 67% Aff 33% Average Speaker Points 27.02757....... Here are some things that you might want to think about if you want to win in front of me. T—I love a good T debate. Unfortunately, I think that these are some of the worse debates that I see. Most of the time debaters do stupid shit like extend T and don’t extend their voters or they never get into any depth dicussion past their tag lines. I think it will help you to think of T like a disad. Here is why—you have your interpretation and then you have advantages to your interpretation—these advantages are things like predictable ground (and why it is good and a is a reason to vote for you, that would be impact) and grammar. These are important if you want to win you interpretation. I think it is what you justify and that is usually more than enough for me. Also, if there is in round abuse that is usually a slam-dunk for you—these in effect become impact magnifiers for why you should win. One last thing if you decide to go for T-don’t be a dumb ass and forget to extend you voters-that will only piss me off and might make me vote against you. CP and Disads—Umm I like em. I tend to err negative on theory, however, I will vote on Conditionality bad and the like. I tend to think that it should be extended like T—if you would like to know how to do that See above. The DA is sweet, I enjoy thinking that my ballot might save the world or destroy it for that matter. K-It seems that alot of people might think that I am unfriendly to the K-however that is simply not true. I am more than willing to listen to your argument, and I will do my best to be fair. I think that to win these args in front of me you have to be clear. I am not sure if they need alternatives, but I will listen to arguments either way,and I am not sure if they need to be textual. One last thing if you are going to go for the K-I think the keyword is framework-You have to win your framework. If there is no discussion about your framework I will default into a policy maker and then you are probably going to be disappointed. If you dont know what your framework is or how it operates then maybe you should stick to running DA's. These are just my suggestions. Speaker points-When I wrote this the 1st time I was unsure what type of criteria I would use for speaker points but I think that I have found one that I am working under right now. and here it is. 25-26-If you get these points from me I feel bad for you. Why cause this may not be the activity for you-And if you stick with this activity you and your coach are going to need to do some serious work. 26-26.5-You may someday be a great debater-that day is not today. In fact, it will probalby not be tomorrow either. 27-27.5-you didnt piss me off too bad and you probably did most things right, but there were still some glaring holes in you technical or argumentive ability.-These are my average speaker points.Actually my average is 27.027..... 28-28.5-you were good, I wasn't amazed, but you did most everything right, and if you get these points and lose, it's cause you got beat, not because you fucked something up. 29-29.5-I have given three of these all year and 2 of them were in the same round-I gave those to Louisville GJ-and the other 29 went to Naveen Ramachandrappa. In these rounds they flat out balled-it was sick-I watched them deliver beat downs to teams that I think are good teams-If you want a 29 from me that is how you do it-make me laugh(even if it is at the other teams expense) and whoop someones ass. Last thing, have some fun with this shit-you could be working at 7-11, the midnight shift, so keep it in perspective. I think these are about all the ramblings I have. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask-Peace 210 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Schatz, Joe Binghampton I will vote on anything and I like impact analysis and believe ‘even if’ statements are a must. I enjoy rounds where I feel I’ve walked away learning something, whether that be the internal workings of the Russian economy or the ontological questions put in motion by this year’s topic doesn’t matter. You will not accomplish this by reading a wall of uniqueness cards or hiding behind a wall of evidence, but rather from explaining and weighing the internal warrants of your cards. I generally do not call for evidence unless it’s being contested and a ‘this causes nuclear war’ claim is meaningless unless I’m told why nuclear war is bad. I can do speed. I enjoy discussion and performance. I believe T is not always a voter but I have voted on T. I like you to talk about the resolution in some way. I’ll pick you up on a dropped theory argument but you gotta explain why I should, and it being dropped is not a warrant for why. I think affirmatives should be related to this year’s topic in some way. I do not care so much if you always have a plan. Switch-sides is my favorite standard for evaluation, and claims of affirmative side-bias and infinite prep annoy me since at most there’s most a year. You gain speaker points for being clever, humorous, smart, and friendly in speeches and cross-x. You lose speaker points for being mean, overly aggressive, cutting off your partner or the other team repeatedly, and for being morally repugnant, even though I will still pick you up under those conditions if you win the debate. I am flow oriented unless you tell me not to be, and even when you do I’m still going to take notes. I have only sat out on one panel all year so far and I now recognize it was the wrong decision, so if you’re running an upstream cap case I now know why you’re topical, and generally consider myself a qualified judge in all styles of debate. I try not to give facial expressions or bodily signals for fear of doing it more for one team than the other, not because I don’t like you or your argument. 211 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Schrader, Brian Denver University 1st year judging 8 rounds this year This is the first year judging college policy debate. I have not had many rounds on the topic but I have read a bit and cut some cards so I am relatively familiar with the topic literature. Even though this is written above I felt it necessary to repeat for the simple reason that it might shed light on the reason that my philosophy is written the way that it is. I will begin by saying that I did not find these things very helpful when I was a debater. They were either mad confusing and or did not answer the questions that would help me determine if a judge that I did not know would be good in the back of the round. That being said, I am not sure that I can write a philosophy that will be helpful for you, especially if you don’t know who I am in the first place, which I am assuming you don’t, since your reading this, right? I do not have a preference when it comes to critical / crazy debate versus the straight up stuff. I did both at different times when I debated and can probably judge them both. Ultimately I think that debate is a game and it will probably be more difficult to convince me that my ballot will make a difference or whatever, but that is not to say that its impossible. Establishing a framework for the debate and justifying why that framework is best for debate is a good idea in any round and is particularly helpful is clash of civ debates. I have no predispositions when it comes to theory debates or T. Hope this was helpful, but if it wasn’t now you know how I used to feel. 212 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Schwartz, Rae Lynn Iowa While I use to consider my role as a judge objective, I have come to understand the impossibility of such a claim. Yet, I do flow, and consider impact evalutation and flow interweaving a burden of rebutles. However, this should not be read to assume I would vote on any dropped argument. Dropped arguments must still be viewed in terms of their role and importance in the debate. If you consider an argument stupid, than it should be easy for you to answer. I have and will vote on any type of well-developed, well-argued position, whether it is a critique, topicality, disad or any other voting issue. I do not give presumption to either team unless they articulate why they should have it. However, it seems to make sense that if the negative proves that the affirmative case does nothing than there is no reason to vote aff. If there is no dispute over evidence I will not read it. I will only read evidence in contention. In these cases evidence comparison is important. You should also know that I do flow cross-ex and consider it to be binding if the argument is made in a speech. The best way to get good speaker points from me not to speak faster than you can speak clear and to lead me through the evaluation process. Also a proliferation of undeveloped voting issues can be harmful because I will give less credence to ones that are important. Topicality, in my mind is important to control the parameters of the debate. However there is nothing I will dismiss faster than an under covered argument. If you are going for topicality it must be well developed, all answers answered and given ample time in the 2NR. I also love to see offensive topicality answers. I enjoy listening to critical arguments but not ones that make unwarranted assumptions. Critical arguments should have a well-articulated link story and a well-developed position. I consider affs biggest flaw, their lack of offense on critiques. Additionally, I am susceptible to discursive contradictions and consider them a strong aff tool. Theory arguments are fine with me, but all too often debaters fail to see the broad picture and look at how different theory agreements interact throughout the debate. Yet, like topicality I want them to be developed not just mentioned. I have voted on theory arguments this year but if it is just cheap tool to win you might reconsider going for them. While I am likely to close off or allow options for debaters based on theory agreements I will not vote solely on them unless there is well articulated abuse demonstrated. Please remember pen time when you are reading your theory block at mock speed. A good case debate may be all you need to win. There is nothing I like more then a specific reason why the case is a bad idea. All too often they are forgotten. On this topic especially I have not seen alot of quality case debate but am ready and waiting. I will vote on any coherent disad. However, it still must be weighed out. I like a good developed disad story please do not wait to the 2NR to share it with me. The best thing the 2NR and 2AR can do is to demonstrate they have a good understanding of the big picture and weigh out the debate as a whole. I much prefer a few well-developed positions then 10 off case. All and all I am thankful you have given me the opportunity to judge you and if you have any other questions please feel free to ask. 213 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Shackelford, Michael Pepperdine University First Year Judging 14+ Rounds So Far My view of debate: I debated for four years at Weber State University under three different directors and a dozen different coaches. I have done a lot of different things in debate rounds, from both ends of the spectrum, and I still see value in all of it. I would consider myself more “liberal/critical” in orientation, but as long as you’re not saying something offensive, I don’t care. For the most part, I think debate is a competitive game that has the potential to be a very powerful forum. Ultimately, I like smart strategic arguments and I appreciate creativity. This usually means that I have to see a lot of framework debates which can get boring, but they don’t have to be. In front of me you can do whatever you want if you can defend your political approach. This means I am more persuaded by role-playing arguments than by claims that “aff gets the right to define.” Left to my own devices I will flow a lot, I think CX is binding, and I will only read evidence if I am curious or if I am forced to. You can win with defense. If the DA doesn’t have a link, then it doesn’t have a link. If the kritik didn’t have an impact, then it doesn’t have an impact. I will not be impressed with poorly constructed, under-underlined arguments that don’t make sense. Lastly, unless its part of the debate, I will vote on dropped arguments. Topicality: Left to myself I will weigh the competing interpretations. The most compelling things to me are contextual pieces of evidence and good impact discussions. Theory: I like creativity and theory arguments that have some nuance. Reading a block will not cut it with me. Make a critical distinction when you are debating and talk about the abuse. I have no pre-dispositions toward any type of theory (run it conditionally if want, I don’t care) Disads: Politics, relations, whatever. I already said it, but I don’t like poorly constructed args. Counterplans: This is where you can impress me with a good strategy. I can defiantly appreciate a strategic PIC, and I am fine with looking at net-benefits as a form of competition. Kritiks: You don’t need one, but I’ve found kritiks to be much more persuasive if you have an alternative. Talk to me about the role of the ballot, and please do the impact work. Case: I love case debate. I like a lot of diversified arguments, and I will vote on it. Speaker Points: An average speech will get a 27. Above and below that, I look at the same things everyone wants (clarity, strategy, etc.). What will get you the extra help is being funny, strategic, bold, and making the decision a quick one. 214 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Shalmon, Dan I don’t think I have a strong predisposition on any particular argument except for those listed below. I do my best to vote on what happens in the debate on a round by round basis but it’s not possible for me to remove myself and my opinions entirely from the debate – this includes my belief that there is a certain minimal threshold for a legitimate argument. Sentence fragments and catchphrases do not do it for me unless there is an explanatory warrant attached. I listen to cross-ex very carefully and I do reward good cx strategies – if I am sorting through unblocked cards I am still listening and I want to hear relevant and intelligent questions and answers. I am not a fantastic flow – if you are at the upper end of the speed spectrum, you might want to slow down a bit or make your arguments longer. If you know me, you know I have hand tremors – although I have never had to stop flowing, my flows are far from perfect. At least until now, I have not read very much evidence to decide debates. On factual questions (‘it will pass/it won’t, oil will last x long/y long’) evidence comparison is the ONLY way to resolve issues – with me you should prize evidence quality and comparison over quantity. I try to call for evidence on the major questions in the debate when it is referenced by debaters. It is easiest to do this when it is cited explicitly, but such references aren’t required. I think overviews are useful and important – if and only if they are used strategically. This means that good overviews resolve points of clash – they do not list arguments or concessions except insofar as they help to isolate the interactions between sets of arguments in the debate. That’s why good overviews contain lots of ‘even if’ statements. For me the most important part of any argument is the link – and every argument in a debate contains a set of links and uniqueness questions. I believe very strongly that specific and layered analysis of the relationships between the plan and the relevant impact area is necessary for effective debating – the better this explanation is, the stronger the arguments (on both sides) are. For me, this applies to every argument in debate – disadvantages, case turns, the K and T all. In every case, it’s all about the link. So, here’s how these general principles operate in particular areas of argument: ASPEC and other specs: Seriously, what the hell. These arguments are generally stupid – I say generally because sometimes there is good evidence specific to the Aff that says vagueness is bad and clarification of particular implementation questions is important. I’ve seen it and cut it, but I’ve never been in a debate where it is read. If you have it, I might vote neg on a spec argument. Otherwise, your chances are not good. I think these arguments are a cheap substitute for intelligent CX set ups for PICs, and I believe they are intellectually stagnant (we’ve explored every relevant argument – nothing new to be discussed) and stupid. Topicality: I don’t mind a good T debate – but this requires both good definitions and a detailed explanation of the FUNCTION of the PLAN in contrast to the interpretation in question. Limits and ground arguments should illustrate why accepting something like the plan as topical creates unfair burdens for one side or the other – I buy these arguments when they are explained in a way that illustrates realistic consequences for the topic. The same is true for the Aff case: I will not vote on ‘establish means ratify’ just because it limits the topic if it makes the topic stupid, or moots other words in the topic. DA’s/Case turns – I like these, my reputation not withstanding. Detailed and specific link analysis is a must – I say analysis because I don’t think you have to have specific evidence to make the good link arguments that connect with more generic evidence. For me there is such a thing as zero risk, particularly when there is a mismatch between uniqueness evidence and internal link cards – and conceptually, uniqueness as such is not a substitute for strong link arguments. CPs: I lean neg on most CP theory questions because I think the Aff should have to defend all of the plan, but I’ll vote on CP theory if you can demonstrate the strategic problems caused by allowing a particular kind of negative argument and how it applies to relevant arguments in the debate. I do think that most of the more ridiculous CP strategies are probably bad for the activity – but it’s not because of any one particular theoretical question, but rather the combinations (conditional consultation, etc.) that tend to make life too hard for the Aff. Kritiks - 215 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet K Affs: I do believe there should be a connection between the resolution and the Affirmative that provides a reason to vote Aff – I believe this because I think it is necessary for a clear division of ground, but I’m not wedded to this predisposition absolutely. The best kritik affs in my opinion are ethical and philosophical arguments that justify a topical plan – if this is the case, ‘theory’ type arguments are not winners with me. I believe I’ve made my position on the Louisville/alternative debate arguments clear. To summarize, I think you should address and refute these critiques of traditional debate methodology substantively just like any other argument. You should ask me if you need more detail. Neg args: Again, link arguments are critical here – specific link arguments to the plan or the advantage claims put complicated philosophical evidence in simplified context so it can be evaluated. I don’t really think there is an intellectually meaningful difference between a good K argument and any other debate argument. Every good negative argument needs to be articulated in the specific context of the Aff – this is true of every part of a K – ‘turns the case’ doesn’t cut – it without a WHY and a HOW. I also think that the negative must explain their framework arguments – if the benefits of the plan as a policy proposition aren’t relevant – what is, and why. Aff answers Substance: You should have it. For me this means clash – evidence which philosophically defends the plan and its philosophical foundations (state intervention in the market, scientific/technological solutions to social and environmental problems, etc.). I wish that more Affirmatives would question the solvency/practicality of alternative arguments – if you think getting rid of the state would cause more problems than it would solve, prove it. Again, evidence isn’t necessary for quality argument – it just helps. The same is true of representation kritiks – try at least to defend what you said if it’s defensible and if it’s not, don’t say it. Theory: I judge too many effing framework debates. I h-a-t-e hate them almost as much as ASPEC. The only useful purpose these arguments serve other than stopping the neg from saying ridiculous stuff is enabling the Aff to make ‘plan good’ arguments – most of the time you can do this without getting into a big theory debate. I do think that the Aff has a right to know what the alternative is and what it does – but that doesn’t mean the Neg can’t elaborate, explain, and elucidate their arguments. Alternatives function RELATIVE to link claims – that’s just how they work. The neg cannot fiat a utopia into existence – this is more a solvency question for substantive debate than a theory argument in my mind. For the neg case, it is very hard to lose a framework debate in front of me if you can win that the argument you are running is relevant to the Aff and that you didn’t make it impossible to answer. I think that’s it. I don’t really put a premium on niceness, but I do (now) think that letting one’s righteous anger override the strategic imperatives of the debate is obnoxious and counterproductive. 216 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet shanahan Fort Hays "Well it goes to Hannah Arendt's notion of Eichmann, the thesis that he embodied the banality of evil. That she had gone to the Eichmann trial to confront the epitome of evil in her mind and expected to encounter something monstrous, and what she encountered instead was this nondescript little man, a bureaucrat, a technocrat, a guy who arranged train schedules, who, as it turned out, ultimately didn't even agree with the policy that he was implementing, but performed the technical functions that made the holocaust possible, at least in the efficient manner that it occurred, in a totally amoral and soulless way, purely on the basis of excelling at the function and getting ahead within the system that he found himself. He was a good family man, in his way. He was loved by his children, participated in civic activities, was in essence the good German. And she [Arendt] said, therein lies the evil. It wasn't that Eichmann was a Nazi or a high official within Nazidom, although he was in fact a Nazi and a relatively highly placed official, but it was exactly the reverse: that given his actual nomenclature, the actuality of Eichmann was that anyone in this sort of mindless, faceless, bureaucratic capacity could be the Nazi. That he was every man, and that was what was truly horrifying to her in the end. That was a controversial thesis because there's always this effort to distinguish anyone and everyone irrespective of what they're doing from this polarity of evil that is signified in Nazidom, and she had breached the wall and brought the lessons of how Nazism actually functioned, the modernity of it, home and visited it upon everyone, calling for, then, personal accountability, responsibility, to the taking of responsibility for the outcome of the performance of one's functions. That's exactly what it is that is shirked here, and makes it possible for people to, from a safe remove, perform technical functions that result in (and at some level, they know this, they understand it) in carnage, emiseration, the death of millions ultimately. That's the Eichmann aspect. But notice I said little Eichmanns, not the big Eichmann. Not the real Eichmann. The real Eichmann ultimately is symbolic, even in his own context. He symbolized the people that worked under him. He symbolized the people who actually were on the trains. They were hauling the Jews. He symbolized the technicians who were making the gas for I.G. Farben. He symbolized all of these people who didn't directly kill anybody, but performed functions and performed those functions with a certain degree of enthusiasm and certainly with a great degree of efficiency, that had the outcome of the mass murder of the people targeted for elimination or accepted as collateral damage. That's the term of the art put forth by the Pentagon” (wc 2005). or, take a couple of minutes before the debate and let me know how you would like me to make a decision, for example, what values are important to your debating, technical advice for me (that is, flowing, speed, and the like), the role of “evidence,” and other ways that you think we could help make this a better round for all of us thanks and enjoy 217 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Sharp, Jon Kentuckty Well, i have tried different ways of doing this in the past (ask me), seemingly to no avail. This time will be simpler. Default Options: Given a lack of contestation, i will... Assume the role-play of a policymaker, and (try to) perform a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences resulting from the (imagined) adoption of the plan. This is the model of judging i find comfortable. Evaluate theory debates through the lens of competing interpretations of a particular field (the resolution, fiat, etcetera), rather than some obscure claims of "abuse." Demand that all participants be treated with (at least) civility in the debate. This means that if being an asshole is a critical element of your strategy (or personality), then you probably want to strike me, rank me really low, or pretend you embrace the values of respect and egalitarianism. Having said this, there are numerous instances in which a lack of civility can be strategic (i am reminded of Texas BH's brilliant AIDS genealogy AFF), and i am powerful interested in these strategies; however, being intentionally insulting is a very sensitive business, and tactical usage is strongly discouraged (this constitutes fair warning for what i might do to yer points). Predispositions: There are a bunch of them, mostly out of line with mainstream debate thinking (such as my desire for civility, my vehement opposition to the travesty of "negative fiat," my fondness for roleplaying the policymaker, and my careerlong love of Rich Uncle Presumption), but it is my position that, in judging debates, these things should be as heavily constrained as i can render them. Some of the predispositions include: There is no coherent basis for negative fiat. Fortunately, the negative is obliged to defend neither the (so-called) "status quo," nor a (so-called) "alternative." The negative negates. We change the topic each year (sort of) in order to facilitate different debates, meaning case debates. Making a slew of warrantless (or merely super-short) theory arguments to defend yourself is an admission that you know your argument is sub-par. For example, the claim that anyone, anywhere, ever, has had or will have "infinite prep time" is a clear indication that you are not familiar with the definitional meaning of the words that you are using (here, infinite). This cannot possibly help your credibility. Having Said That: If i have judged you before, you have probably found out that i have really strong views about what debate is, does, and should look like. You also know that i try (or, if not try, at least try to try) to limit the intervention of my biases into my judging. If i have not judged you, all i can say is that i vote for stuff that i think is silly (or worse...usually worse) all the damn time. i will listen to your (ridiculous) PIC and its (contrived, politically vacant, entirely unrealistic) politics DA...i will listen to your (ridiculous) "K" and its (contrived, politically vacant, entirely unrealistic) "alternative"...i will even listen to your (thoughtful, well-researched) case debate and its (actually realistic) disads...except that most people seem to have forgotten "the case" actually exists. The Important Part: All that i really ask is that you are clear, in the sense that i can make out the words (or whatever) that you are saying. I will try my hardest, and i expect you to periodically note whether or not i'm getting you, which it real easy, 'cause when i ain't, i'm staring at you blankly. As an aside, on panels, it is less likely that i will say "clearer" or anything like that...maybe i will, maybe i won't...so LOOK UP once in a while. Postscript: i apologize that this was not (precisely) funny, for more info and a damn good laugh (if i do say so myself, check out last year's: http://www.kings.edu/debate/judges/NDT2001/judges2001/Sharpphilosophy.htm 218 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Sherwood, Ken Director of Forensics: Los Angeles City College 14 years coaching - So. Cal region 20 + rounds on this topic Judging Paradigm: I am an argument critic. This means that I expect complete arguments. Do not make one-line blip responses without explanation and expect me to know what the argument is supposed to be or how to apply it. This is your responsibility, not mine. I like good fast rounds. The faster the better as long as you are clear and have a reason to go fast. Please do not spread for the sake of being fast. If 1AC ends with two minutes left, I will be annoyed at the pointlessness of your speed. I have some very particular dislikes when it comes to arguments. I get very annoyed when non-unique disads are labeled as critiques. I love critiques as long they are true critiques and argued correctly. Any argument that ends with normative impacts is a disad, not a critique. I am also of the opinion that a critique is just another argument. There is nothing special, unique, or a-priori about a critique. It is not more important than any other argument in the debate. I do NOT believe in the notion of pre-FIAT. There can logically be no such thing. I do not believe in discursive impacts to arguments within the round. My ballot is not a tool of social change. No one but myself or the two debate teams and their coaches will ever read it. Debate the topic. Nothing you want to argue about is more important than the resolution. I have no problem with alternative performances as long as they are used as an attempt to argue the resolution. I will not vote for a performance or a critique that indicts debate itself. I don’t like topical counter plans. In fact, the only way you are likely to win on a topical counter plan is if the Aff makes no responses at all. I don’t buy into negation theory on face. If you expect me to allow you to run contradictory arguments and not be held responsible for the contradictions, you had better give me one hell of a good reason; don’t simply invoke “negation theory” and think you have justified your actions. The burden of proof is on you to justify multiple contradictory arguments; it is not your opponent’s responsibility to prove that they are not justified – that presumption exists prior to any such justification on your part. Overall, I do my best not to intervene in the debate, which means I will vote for any of the arguments mentioned above if they are not answered properly – I just won’t like it. Finally, I may or may not reveal my decision at the end of each debate. I reserve the right to say nothing if I feel that nothing positive or productive can come from the discussion. As a presumption, I am not likely to give any postround commentary following a round in which the arguments are personal. If you feel that you must personally believe in the truth of your positions within the debate, then you and I are not participating in the same activity and nothing positive can come from us fighting over that fact after the debate. 219 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Silber, Marissa University of Florida Years Judging College: 2 My upbringing in debate has caused me to believe that the affirmative should defend a (topical) plan enacted by the United States Federal Government. Does this mean you cannot read critical advantages to your affirmative? Of course not – but you should be prepared to defend a plan in which the USFG does something topical. I am much more flexible about what debaters can do on the negative since they are not tied to the resolution and defending USFG, however like most judges, I have some dispositions within debate and certain understandings that will make debating in front of me easier for you. Impact comparison is especially important to me as a judge – time-frame/probability/and magnitude questions are all really important, but even issues such as “what is my role as a judge” and “what arguments I should give special attention to” should be addressed. However, just saying “discourse comes first,” “it’s a voter for fairness,” or “we are pre-fiat” is not enough work – explanation must be included. Having either short round overviews or specific argument overviews tend to help me in making my decision since this hopefully guarantees some comparison is occurring in the round. Over the last year, I have been told by debaters that they assume I never vote on the K. Contrary to this, I have also been told (which I found particularly amusing) that when I debated I set an example of why representations critiques are important for this activity and social leaning. I would define myself to be much more moderate than the two characteristics described by my judging/debating. I do not have a deep understanding of much of the philosophical literature, but I can figure out how to evaluate most criticisms. I will try my hardest to understand your criticism, but if you are discussing philosophical ideas deeper than “the state, or capitalism is bad” you should be prepared to explain your argument, especially the specific links and alternative (if it has one). I have found myself in a dilemma several times this year over framework debates. My issue again goes to whether or not impact analysis occurs – if you win the framework debate when you are affirmative or negative, what does it mean? Does the other team lose? Does it just justify certain arguments? This needs to be clear to me! I can be persuaded how to view theory arguments in debate based on what the debaters tell me. Thus, it must be clear how I should interpret topicality debates – is it based on competing interpretations or just whether some ground is lost? I do not have a strong disposition over counterplan theory, however, if you are going for a theory argument please do not just make a ton of blippy theory arguments and instead slow down a little and develop your arguments. Read disads, read case turns, read counterplans…. I like these. Specific kritiks are much better than generic kritiks, and it is probably better if they have an alternative. Two other comments: Please do not steal prep – you get ten minutes of it, there is a reason preparation time constraints exist. Be nice and respectful to each other – debate should be enjoyable for the contestants, judges, and audience! Good luck! 220 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Simonson, Lindy Kansas I really thought long and hard about how I judge and what is the best way to convey my preferences to all ya’ll but being that I am a first year out I have yet to develop lots of conrete-set-in-stone opinions making me pretty unpredictable and most of what I say on here subject to change, but for now I will do my best to guide you in your decision to 1 me or strike me. how I am voting/assigning points thus far: I’ve judged approximately 36ish rounds and have voted almost equally aff as I have neg with a little (not statistically significant) lean to the aff. I have voted on everything from Suffering Good to Inherency. Here is what you need to get good speaks from me. Funny comments are massively appreciated. If you can’t be funny and even if you can be ... be nice. I don’t like overly aggressive people so chill out before you speak. Clarity is also important. Generally I won’t yell clear. If you're not clear its just your fault and its not on my flow. Another way to get good speaks is impact and evidence comparisons (which I feel are the two most important things for debaters to do since I HATE reading evidence). cheap shots: I feel that if an argument is slightly wanky but has an impact and is well explained I will vote on it. I was a very technical debater and so the flow and answering arguments is important to me and one of the few things I still carry with me from when I debated; meaning you have to spend time on it in the last few speeches and weigh the cheap shot versus other potential cheap shots, theory, T ect. Theory: I’ll vote on and actually really like in-depth theory debates. I do not believe that only in round abuse warrants the ballot. The majority of theory debates to me are about what is good and bad for debate much like topicality arguments. Make sure the abuse versus potential abuse arguments are in depth. I also default negative on most counterplan theory but that does not mean these debates are any where close to impossible for the aff to win. Now specific theory debates: Aspec: it’s a voter. You should ask in CX I believe a concrete answer checks since I pay close attention to CX. If you ask and the aff gives you a shady answer you’re more likely to win the conditionality debate with me. Conditionality: this is probably the only theory argument I feel strongly about. I believe that Conditionality is bad and thus it takes a lot on the negatives part to win this debate in front of me. PICS: this will be the AFF’s toughest win, especially if it is a plan specific or topic specific pic. Once again this does not mean it is un-winable I just feel it will be more of an uphill battle than any other theory argument. Topicality: I have a general belief that plans should be topical. I love in-depth T debates. Technical drops and lack of explanation of the impact to Topicality are the reasons I generally won’t vote for T. I have waxed and waned on Competing interpretations as a standard for evaluating T debates and I think it’s a debate to be had as opposed to me actually having an opinion on it. K/ K affs/ Framework: This is the biggest deviation from my debating style to my judging style. While I used to find most policy framework arguments compelling most of that is not the case. This does not mean these arguments are un-winable but arguments like “aff choice” and “K’s are just plain not allowed” seem absurd to me. High Theory K’s (Zizek and Lacan) have not ever been compelling to me probably because in a debate context I don’t think they are explained in-depth enough. I find policy framework arguments more compelling on the negative the impact just must ba explained well (I don’t think people will leave the activity is an impact). I’ve not come to an opinion on “performance” affs yet, being as I have had very very little exposure to them yet, but Critical and Semi-critical aff’s have had an equal winning percentage with policy affs. CP: I love tricky counterplans. Counterplans in general are good for me but I especially like tiny strategies revolving around a very case specific pic... that's just the KU debater in me I guess. DA: Love them. the more specific the link the better. You can rarely win just a DA with me and outweigh the case but it is possible with the right amount of impact calculus. Winning a DA that has only the same impact as case will probably be an uphill battle... turning case is good but just turning case... might fail. 221 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Case Debates: love them as well. just because a DA is on case does not mean it is not a disad. And I have no problems voting on Inherency just ask Baylor. Questions? more than happy to answer them. 222 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Slusher, Eric Some things to know: 1.) I'm a real jerk about prep time abuse. When you say you're ready, be ready. Don't get one more piece of advice from your partner, don't grab more cards, don't be looking for the flows you lost, etc. Those are things you should do during prep time. If I've got the timer, expect that I will be looking for prep time theft and running your time. You wouldn't want me to play fast and loose with speech time - so don't complain when I am equally vigilant about prep time. I don't think they should be treated any differently. It's not a running clock - but pretty close to it. 2.) Cross-ex is binding. I generally feel that pre-1NC clarifications about the plan deal with most neg. abuse args. But, I could be wrong about that in some cases. While cross-ex is binding, it only lasts 3 minutes. Questions after the allotted 3 minutes will come from prep time and there's no guarantee I am listening or even in the room at that point. 3.) Here's my default on counterplans. In order for a counterplan to win the debate for the negative it must be both competitive with and better than the affirmative plan. It is possible for a counterplan to be competitive with but worse than the affirmative plan. In this case I believe the negative is stuck with the counterplan for evaluation purposes. If in the evaluation process I decide the counterplan is not competitive with the plan it will no longer be an issue in the debate. This is how I will do things if left to my own devices "Competitive" with me basically means "a forced choice". I think counterplans are opportunity costs rather than advocated alternatives. I don't think negatives have much, if any, advocacy burden outside of your discursive args. I have no idea what "conditional" or "dispositional" means so you're gonna have to explain those concepts to me. If in the 2NR you're concerned you may lose your counterplan but know you got it going on with your disad and case args simply argue that even if you lose your counterplan you can still win your disad and case defense and win the debate. If the counterplan is not competitive it will cease to be a factor in the decision making process. No, that's not basically "conditional". A counterplan can be mutually exclusive and have a turned net-benefit. If you turn the net-benefit and concede that the counterplan is exclusive the negative is stuck with the counterplan in my mind. Oh, and perms aren't something that can become policy. I don't vote FOR perms, I vote ON perms. A permutation can prove a counterplan noncompetitive but it doesn't become the implemented policy. The debate is still affirmative plan focused. Unless you win you can advocate it - and that changes everything. This probably won't ever implicate the debate...but it could implicate how you strategically approach counterplans in the debate I watch you in. (i.e.-the permutation cannot be applied as link take-out to the disad in it's own right. If you win the perm you still need to worry about the plan alone linking to the disad) I think this is a key feature of the NDT/CEDA theory divide. I came up CEDA, so that's where I stand. In the same sense, voting negative ON a counterplan doesn't mean voting FOR the counterplan. The counterplan presents a reason to forgo the aff plan because another option COULD/WOULD be beneficial and would be forgone by voting for the aff plan. Negative means NOT AFF to me. Only the affirmative plan can be implemented. The debate for me to decide is; aff plan…yes or no? AGAIN, this is just a default for me. If you feel differently, I'm willing to evaluate these issues according to what happens in the debate we're in. For an explanation of that, see item #5 below. 4.) Some people think I am a hack for "critiques", "left" arguments, "schnaa" and all that stuff. I do like innovative arguments by both the aff and the neg. I think labels for certain types of arguments tend to marginalize them…but that's a whole other complaint. I often think that debaters have trouble making their arguments relevant in the "framework" for evaluation established implicitly or explicitly by some teams. While I don't consider myself a "hack" for anything or anyone you probably can't expect me to just assume an argument is bad for debate because nothing in your box worked against it. The most important thing for me is understanding the impact, framework, consequence, value, utility or meaningfulness of the argument you present. If I don't have something along those lines to hang my hat on I tend to vote for the other side. I think it is imperative for a negative to somehow address both the solvency and the impact of the affirmative. That doesn't have to be done in a "traditional" way - it just has to be done. Your argument must prove to be a more pressing issue than the opposition for it to win. So, just make sure your "critique" out-weighs or nullifies the case impact in some fashion. I haven't seen a debate yet that I would classify as a "performance" in the sense that I understand "performance"(theatrical or academic). But, I'm willing to check it out. If you are into trying new arguments I'm probably an okay judge to have because I'm pretty openminded. Just make sure you can explain why what you're doing is important. I like debates over disads and counterplans too. I hardly ever get to see those anymore! 5.) There's no argument that you can't run. I'm not so arrogant that I won't hear you out on your arg. 6.) Theory debates are out of control. I'm willing to evaluate the debate on them though. But, you need to apply your arguments to the opposition's arguments in a thoughtful and deliberate fashion. Evaluating two education impacts is 223 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet tough without some guidance from the debaters. Having "offense" doesn't alone guarantee victory - cause one team's "defense" can beat the other's "offense". The best thing to do is to apply your theory arguments to the debate at hand and the counterplan in question and the abuse incurred in the speech or speeches you feel necessary. Sometimes arguments on your block aren't tailored to the particular counterplan in question. In those cases you need to do some original and thoughtful debating. I'm growing less willing to evaluate theory debates based on small, tiny arguments that get dropped by one side. I'm trying to be more oriented to evaluating the theme and vision presented by one side. And, remember, I have no pre-conceived notion of what the terms "dispositional" and/or "conditional" mean (see item #4 above) so you have to explain the grounding for those theory concepts. 7.) I am VERY open to teams that suggest I not flow the debate or flow it differently. Just thought I'd mention that. 8.) I hear a lot of people say they won't vote for a team on things like "sexist language", "computers bad", arguments about small or large schools, etc. I WILL if they are won. If an argument is bad you should have no trouble beating it. If you think it's bad you shouldn't assume I do and work to convince me that it is, or that it shouldn't be treated as an all or nothing voting issue. I think most any argument is open for debate. 9.) I prefer to evaluate arguments about evidence rather than the evidence itself. What this means is that I probably won't call for a dropped card as long as there is an explanation of the evidence by the team extending it. I will always accept what the team "claims" the evidence says unless that claim is challenged - in which case I will read the evidence for myself. Usually, I tend to read evidence to increase my understanding of an argument. But, I am unwilling to count arguments in the evidence that the team using it fails to make. So, you need to make the arguments the evidence supports as you extend it. When you initially read it hopefully the entire arg is in the tag. But, if the evidence has more utility than the argument in the tag make the argument yourself. Basically, I won't discount an argument because the evidence is bad unless the opposing team challenges that evidence. I don't argue the evidence, you do. And, you can't extend evidence without explanation and expect me to use the argument in the evidence for you. You have to verbalize the argument the evidence makes. (this is usually most important on uniqueness debates for disads). 10.) Show respect to your opponents and their arguments. Treating your opponents with disrespect is about the worst thing you can do in my opinion. You should already have an idea of what I mean by disrespect for your opponents. Just don't do it. If you disrespect arguments you might just lose on them and then the joke is on you. I don't care if you don't show me respect. If you don't, there's a good chance I don't like you either. 224 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Smith, Ross Wake Forest Read Tim O’Donnell’s philosophy statement.. Read my posts on edebate archives. Paradigm. I know the term has fallen into disuse, but the perspective I find easiest to use to judge a debate is one which sees the debate as a request by the affirmative for my endorsement of a decision by those in a position to do the affirmative plan to do the affirmative plan. There, that confused you. Try this: should the affirmative plan be desired by those who would be deciding to do it? OK, by now you should have recognized the “plan focus.” What you may be unfamiliar with is the notion of perspective. Simply put, what may seem good from one perspective may seem bad from another. But in a debate, we have a binary opposition (according to the rules). Presumptions: here’s another old-fashioned term. The paradigm above can be seen as one basic presumption. Another is that topicality is a voting issue. A third is that the affirmative has the burden of proof with regard to answering the question that the paradigm poses. Corollary Presumptions: This list flows from the basic presumptions, and is handy: 1) A “debatable” plan is not necessarily a topical one. If there is not reasonable definitional support for a plan’s topicality, then it is not topical. On the affirmative side of this same coin, just because an affirmative interpretation may not be preferred according to some aesthetic standard does not mean that it is an unacceptable interpretation. 2) Plan-inclusive counterplans are ok. 3) Conditional counterplans are ok. 4) International, states, tribes, and, to a lesser extent, other federal agents counterplans are suspect. 5) The affirmative must have an advantage or must have turned a disad. The advantage must be unique. 6) If the best policy at the end of the round includes the entire aff. plan, then the aff. wins. 7) A plan is an agent undertaking a course of action. 8) Theory is not a voting issue against the neg. The only questions that presumptively precede the question of the plan’s desirability seem to be a) did the aff defend a topical plan that was specific enough and unconditional, and b) did either team behave so offensively as to warrant a loss? 9) These presumptions can be overcome by force of argument. But the argument has to have reasons for me to believe it. Just because you assert that “X skews time” why should that persuade me? Some other potentially helpful comments: 1) I have heard some “disad” shells so poorly developed as to warrant no 2AC response. 2) I am not particularly fond of the Bush disad for theoretical and “real-world” reasons. 3) I have voted frequently for the Bush disad and for the “suspect” counterplans. 4) Assess your intelligibility by watching me and my flow. If I’m not writing much, you have a problem. 5) I usually take a very good flow. Debaters often do not. 6) “Try or die” and “The disad is unique and unturned” are amusing statements in which affirmatives cloak, “We have no solvency but vote for us anyway” and negatives cloak, “Who needs a link?” 7) Junk theory args seem to proliferate recently. This garbage and garbage “it’s a voting issue” are getting less and less persuasive daily. 8) For want of better, I frequently must use the link x impact= A>B formula. It makes a big difference then if the link is 1% vs 10% or the impact is 10 vs 100. How many units is the impact of a “nuc war, juhdge”? 9) I have voted for kritiks, discourse affs, and other weird stuff too often. I am trying to cut down. But usually there are no useful criteria established for how to evaluate and compare (or even identify) “speech acts.” If the aff or neg does not defend the paradigm I outline above . . .Oh well. 10) C-X time ends for me when the timer stops. So prioritize your use of that time. 11) "What is the question we are trying to answer in this debate?" is the key to winning when performativity and discourse jumps in. I vote for K's most when aff can't defend focus on plan desirability. Bottom line: I am an “expert” on only one thing, debate. It is easier to persuade me about subjects other 225 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet than debate than it is to change my mind about debate. Too many people lose my ballot because they do not defend against attacks on my presumptions. 226 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Smith-Williams, Abi In general, I am a big fan of debates in which the affirmative defends a plan. My predisposition is to default to a “policy making” framework and line by line argumentation. I am usually uncomfortable and unhappy about making decisions that involve evaluating a debater’s personal experience, displays of emotion, or issues with how the game of debate is played. That being said, I am willing to vote on any argument that you win, regardless of my personal biases. I want to try to avoid inserting my own feelings about arguments into the debate, because debaters work extremely hard on their arguments and deserve better. Nobody should have to come into a round feeling like they have to fight an uphill battle because of who the judge is. If you run a critique in front of me, you should know a few things: I am probably not familiar with your argument beyond a surface level. So throwing around terms minus an explanation will not mean much to me (and is probably not good practice anyway). I find it hard to believe the argument that “the K is like a gateway issue just like T.” If you run a critical affirmative, I still think you have to be topical. I am at least semi-intelligent, so if you explain your arguments and win them, I will always vote for you, even if that’s not my favorite argument. Theory: I am certainly willing to vote on it, but I hate theory debates that are a block war instead of line by line and will try my best to find another way to vote if it has devolved into that. Topicality: A priori and always a voting issue. I am a huge fan of creative counterplans, disads, smart strategic choices, aggressive (not mean-spirited) debates, and humor (which I think there is not enough of in debates). I love watching good debates and I take my role very seriously. This is my first year out, so a lot of this “judging philosophy” is still being formulated and reflects more of what I am more familiar / comfortable with than conclusions about my view of debate. 227 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Snider, Sarah I do tend to flow. Actually, I do more than tend to flow. I flow pretty much all the time, except when the debate moves in an alternative direction in which the traditional flow just doesn’t make sense. If flowing won’t help me to understand the debate, or to conceptualize it I will not flow. I will always begin the debate by flowing. And some teams speak in a way that assumes one should flow even when they are debating a team that thinks flowing is bad. I will flow people who want to be flowed. It’s as simple as that. ❐Counterplans: I believe that the negative should establish a method to be used in the debate to determine competition. The aff should indict this framework in their attempt to permute the counterplan. Shallow permutation debates frustrate me. Theory debates should be offensive. Theory debates should be clear. I view collapsing the debate to theory at the end as a choice that one would make either because it is their only hope, or a clear and easy victory. When debaters go for theory under other circumstances I view it as a choice that may detract from other substantive issues in the debate. I do not believe that every single thing the negative says must be a net benefit to their counterplan. In other words if the counterplan is dispositional or conditional and the negative runs a critical arg that links to the counterplan, it is unlikely I will vote on a “performative contradiction”. I find myself voting neg a lot and then telling the aff “dude, they are neg” after the 2AR goes for performative contradiction arguments. ❐Disadvantages: Case specific disads are sweet. If the affirmative wishes to criticize the disadvantage they should probably not engage the disadvantage on other levels. It is quite possible that I will determine that the negatives disad is not as repugnant as you want me to think. The affirmative should have offense if they expect a solid win, however, I do believe in complete link-take-outs, even if the negative “controls the u” Affirmatives frequently actively avoid utilizing their built-in offense appropriately. I really do enjoy a good disad debate. One thing I have found about myself is that I won’t just automatically extend your impact for you, whether you are aff or neg. The aff can’t just say they conceded the case and it outweighs the D/A. I actually want to know why you outweigh the D/A. And, if you are going for an impact that you didn’t explicitly talk about in the 2AC and the 1AR, well then I am sorry you forgot to extend your impacts. This is the same for the neg. Reading the card isn’t enough. Explain it. And by all means, do not hesitate to say that the other team didn’t do a good job on their impacts. ❐Critical Args: If the aff has them they should be used strategically to preempt arguments the negative will make. If the aff has a critical framework I do not believe that they can wait until rebuttals to let that framework be known in much the same way the 1NR should not run a new counterplan. I prefer not to reject the negative for running a conditional criticism. The aff should have offense against the criticisms alternative(s). The negative should explain how their critical arguments indict the solvency of the affirmative. I believe that the affirmative can and should offensively engage the methodology of the criticism. If I were aff, I’d quit trying to get out of their links (let’s face it, you do say USFG) and start saying that their critique is BAD. ❐Topicality: 228 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet It is incredibly important that you are sure I know what your interpretation is clearly. Too often people speed through their interpretations in constructives and then spend their rebuttal time responding to the other teams reasons to prefer. If the affirmative is blatantly not topical I could understand your decision to go for topicality in front of me. But if it is an incredibly intricate T debate on a case that is prominently run you may not want to choose the T route in front of me unless the aff made some egregious error in the 2AC on your violation or failed to provide a counter interpretation. One thing affs should know is that no matter how stupid you think the argument is, you need to have coherent arguments in the 2AC, 1AR and the 2AR in order to win (I have voted for United States means the United States of Brazil in the absence of a counter interpretation). ❐If you are not a traditional debaterYou should feel ok about preferring me. I won’t just say that you suck. However, I am open to arguments that traditional debate is good. I enjoy debate as a tool for advocacy though and I would like to think that we are trying to do more than just show off how fast and smart we are. Is it possible for this all not to just be about us? 229 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Solt, Roger Kentucky GENERAL JUDGING ORIENTATION. 1. I view our form of debate as an intellectual game centering on public policy argument. Infomed policy judgments are important pretty much wherever we situate ourselves: as policy makers. as concerned citizens, as social critics, or as activists- Even a decision to "walk away" from political engagement requires an assessment of what the government is and should be doing- There are. of course, other worthwhile things to debate beyond public policy. But the fact that we are debating a policy topic should serve to inform the relative germaneness of arguments within this particular context. This does not mean that issues concerning discourse. assumptions, or underlying paradigms are wholly irrelevant. but it does require that their impact be expressed within the logic of policy discourse, that is, as a reason to reject a particular affirmative plan. 2. As the above clearly suggests, my ultimate theoretical allegiances are strongly associated with traditional policy argument. HOWEvER, I find that even after ten years, most debaters do a very poor job of defending a policy framework relative to some critical aIternative- This means that in practice I am often (at least relatively often) persuaded to vote for critical arguments3. I am strongly disinclined to vote on debate theory. Debate theory is interesting, but in the end it is intellectually trivial. Whatever you take away from the activity. surely among the least important matters will be your knowledge of the agent specification or the PICs good and bad debate. Giving too much weight to theory trivializes more important substantive concerns. It also encourages terrible, flowgocentric, cheap shot debating. Finally, the debate over most contested theory issues is close and often nearly indeterminate. Ideally, debates should be decided on grounds more substantial than which series of tag lines the judge finds most congenial. 4. Speaking more clearly earns you more speaker points. TOPICALITY 1- In even the most minimalist of rule books, it seems necessary for the affimlative to be topical. (The only other indispensable role is that the negative must compete.) 2. The affirmative is obliged to meet a semantically and syntactically plausible interpretation of the resolution. Being debatable in a given round does not absolve them of this burden, but in round debatability may help to leverage fairness-based negative arguments like inits and negative ground. COUNTERPLANS 1. They must compete based on some demonstration of net benefit. Legitimate permutations include all the plan and all or part of the counterplan. Textual permutations which functionally sever are probably illegitimate. A legitimate permutation is a policy option the judge can vote for at the end of the round. 2. I embrace a theory of constrained conditionality in which each team is limited to one proposal for change but the judge can also vote for any logical combination of the two policies, that is, any legitimate permutation or the status quo. 3. Negative fiat remains a mw-ky area of theory -I tend to think that the negative should be limited to (and can legitimately employ) domestic public actors. A grounding of the counterplan in the topic literature is a further~ plausible requirement. Other theories, such as those constraining object fiat may also have merit. 6. Partially plan inclusive counterplans are generally acceptable. unless their distinction from the plan is too trivial to be worth debating- 230 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Stables, Gordon USC My experience in debate leads me to believe that change in our policy debate community functions in something of an organic process. As new models are introduced they change through an interaction with previously existing practices. Sometimes they can cooperate and sometimes one model overtakes or fundamentally alters the other. At our current moment it appears that several conflicting models of argumentation are in play and I enjoy the creativity that this provides. Here are my thoughts on I how attempt to adjudicate when the ways we debate are argued in front of me. Importance of the resolution (and side division) I am willing to suspend typical norms of argument construction and standards of proof as long as the exchange is framed by the resolution and the divide it imposes on the two sides, particularly the affirmative. I believe this provides each team with the flexibility to explore new ways to ‘make an argument’ even as it creates a framework for competitive equity. I do believe, however, that the affirmative needs to make a presentation that supports (not merely references) the resolution and I am not sympathetic to affirmatives that fail to affirm the resolution regardless of their potential benefits as academic enterprises. For the negative, the burden becomes responding/clashing in some ways with the affirmative’s project. My experience has been that the further this model collapses the harder it is to adjudicate the debate – regardless of what standards of evidence or methods of delivery are used. Importance of competitive equity For me, a great number of debates centered around theoretical conceptions ultimately ask the question, “Does a particular practice provide for competitive debates by both sides?” This may relate to the legitimacy of dispositionality, conditionality or any other such approach or it may relate to the legitimacy of permuting an opponent’s advocacy. I find it easiest to resolve these debates when teams explore the implications of such practices as general norms of debate, in addition to the impact in this particular round. I also find that teams under-employ the opportunity to reciprocate a potentially abusive practice. If another team has skewed argumentative ground in the debate, instead of merely assails its legitimacy, why not provide a measured response that gives you the same argumentative flexibility? Judging this year has persuaded me that we are also wrestling with concerns over competitive equity in the construction and presentation of personal identity in debates. I am excited that debaters are willing to make connections between debate rounds and the larger world we live in, but I am extremely uncomfortable, and very resistant to, voting for a particular team because of their lived experiences or personal actions. I do not dismiss this as a means of proof, but I am strongly opposed to merging the personal as the argument. As long as we as a community believe in switch side debate we acknowledge the possibility that debaters may argue a variety of positions, including those in opposition with their personal beliefs. The ideological spectrum in debate is not broad enough to adjudicate debates on the basis of whose personal identity(ies) is superior. I understand that the personal is always strongly present in the construction of arguments, but there is a value to recognizing some distinction between the two. Speaker Point Scale I think there is a general agreement that the scale is not very large. I applaud the efforts by JP Lacy and others to openly discuss their point scales because I hope it allows a community-based discussion of the norms inherent in our point scales and maybe even as a starting point for reforms. I use 27 as the baseline for an average presentation. My range utilizes 27 to about 28.5 on a regular basis. Particularly compelling (or not compelling) performances may cause a number on either side of that range, but in many debates your points will be from that scale. Enjoy the wonderful opportunity that debate provides. 231 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Stahl, Greta Relevant Info: I have only done a small amount of research on topic-specific issues this year, and I have only been to two tournaments (USC and Fullerton). Hence, if you use some unusual terminology/acronyms/etc., it’s in your best interest to clarify what they mean. Topicality/Agent Specification: I tend to judge these types of debates in an offense/defense paradigm. What do I mean by this? If you’re neg, exploit a lack of reasons why the aff interpretation is BETTER than the neg interpretation. If you’re aff, make sure that you, a. have a counter-interpretation, and b. have reasons why it’s better than the neg interpretation. Also, I haven’t heard that many T debates on this topic, so even if you think your T argument is pretty standard and requires no explanation, I wouldn’t go with that presumption. I’ll be honest – ASPEC is not my favorite argument of all time. I’m not saying I won’t vote on it, but if this is what you’re going for in the 2NR when there are other, less stupid arguments that are winnable, I am going to be very unhappy with you. Disadvantages: I like them, generally speaking. Smart negatives advance reasons why the disad impact interacts with the case, and smart affs don’t drop these arguments in the 1AR or 2AR. Counterplans: Generally speaking, I like these as well. Related to the fact that I do not know all that much about this topic, if you are running a very case-specific counterplan with intricate solvency mechanisms, it wouldn’t hurt you to take a moment in the block to explain what the counterplan does and how it solves the case. I tend to be neg leaning on most theory issues (PICs good, dispo good, etc.) though I certainly wouldn’t say that it’s impossible to convince me to vote aff on these theory arguments. Critical Arguments: While these certainly weren’t my proclivity when I was a debater, I have no problems with negatives going for these arguments in front of me. That said, if your argument relies on a form of debate without any structure or coherent advocacy on the aff, I’m probably not the best judge for you. -A few tips to make this more compelling on the neg: explain your link story (the more specific or contextualized the better); make a coherent impact claim; explain what your alternative does or does not do, and explain how it solves the case/your critique impact. -A few tips for answering them on the aff: 1. The permutation has an inherent appeal for me, but only if you a. explain how it functions; b. answer the negative responses to the permutation, (i.e. if you drop perm theory or co-optation arguments, this is going to be a hard sell); and c. have a net benefit to the perm – just because it is a kritik doesn’t mean you don’t need reasons why the perm is BETTER than the alternative. 2. Have offense – no aff has every beaten the K on “no link” arguments. 3. Don’t forget about your case – arguments about how the 1AC still functions or how the alternative fails to solve thecase should pretty much always be advanced. Which leads to a discussion of… 232 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Framework Arguments: I feel like “framework” debates have come to dominate the ways in which affirmatives answer the kritik in the last couple of years. While I don’t think that this is necessarily a bad development, it does seem like teams (on both sides) sometimes think simply saying the word “framework” explains what they are getting at. It doesn’t. If advancing arguments about how to evaluate the debate/the role of the judge or ballot/etc., both sides should explain: 1. What your framework is – I think this is pretty self-explanatory 2. What happens if you win your argument – It seems like some teams assume that winning their framework arguments mean that they win the debate. I don’t think this is necessarily true unless you EXPLAIN why this is true. For example, if you are aff and you win that only policy alternatives should be allowed, why does this mean you win? Does it then mean that the case outweighs the link arguments? Does it make the alternative go away? And if you are negative and, for example, advance an argument about why debates should be evaluated based on representations, why should that mean you win? Are the negative’s representations better than the aff representations? In summary, impacting your arguments is a good way to win my ballot. Random things that piss me off 1. If you’re aff, don’t blow off the case debate if you’re depending on the case to win the debate. I give negs a lot of leeway on arguments that are dropped/under-covered by the aff. 2. If you don’t finish a card, you should mark it while you are reading – which means that if you have a tendency to do this, bring a pen up with you. You don’t get to use your opponent’s c/x time to mark your cards – I will take it out of your prep if you try. And I will be really pissed if you try and do it at the end of the round – b/c let’s face it, there’s no way you remember how much you read. 233 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Staiti, David I returned to debate last year after being away for a while. I have been "surprised" by what I have seen. As a response to the numerous postings on eDebate in recent days, a good friend suggested that I post my updated judging philosophy from Planet Debate. Lousiville can pretty much put me on their strike sheet forever (although they may not need to do so as I am not a lay person. PHILOSOPHY All you really need to know about my judging philosophy is in this first paragraph. I am not in academia and am therefore isolated from the world of intellectual masturbation that occurs in America's fine learning institutions. I believe that policy debate is one of the best activities a young person can engage in to prepare them for a career in business, law or politics. Policy debate helps to devlop tremendous research, analytical, oratory and presentation skills. If done properly, under the ADA/NDT rules, debate will get you ready for life in the real world. Thus, if you don't work within the framework of traditional policy debate, you will lose. I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER entertain nonesensical arguments about changing mindsets with debate, debate as advocacy, nor will you find me sympathetic to your whinning about how you've been oppressed by debate, that debate is elitist/exclusionary, etc. If you don't want to play by the rules, you should stop coming to tournaments and form your own debate league. If you choose to show up and register for NDT/ADA tournaments, stop whinning, do some actual work and research, and make real arguments. Last year I was horrified at the complete lack of respect that debaters had for their opponents and judges alike. I will severely punish people who are blatantly disrespectful. Also, in my opinion, debate is about presentation ability. If you tried to make a presentation in a corporate boardroom while wearing shorts and flip flops, you would not be taken seriously -- nor will I take you that seriously if you are dressed like a slob. 234 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Stannard, Matt Wyoming I think most theoretical and paradigmatic questions need to be debated in the round rather than mandated by my judging philosophy. Absent a clearly articulated alternative, I tend to weigh impacts in a fairly standard fashion. I am open to alternatives to this, but kritik-oriented debaters are often frustrated at my inability to understand the impact debate. I love critical argument and hate defaulting to realism, but you gotta articulate the “impact.” I have enjoyed the “performative turn” in policy debate, but I have two reservations about it: (1) it seems to invite judge intervention, and (2) it seems to dodge questions of fair division of ground. If performers can anticipate and answer these concerns, then as far as I’m concerned, all the world’s a stage. I don’t like to read a lot of evidence after the debate, so the more you can tell me about an argument, the more I will write down. I have been accused of being too obsessed with when and where arguments are made, trying to render a fair decision. I enjoy fast, clean debates…don’t much like rudeness…detest blippy theory debates…love this topic…deeply respect the hard work and passion that people put into the activity. 235 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Starks, LaTonya Topicality: I like good Topicality debates. I view it just like any disadvantage, meaning there has to be evidence read on both sides. For negative teams to win this arg, they have to have a good interpretation of the resolution and reasons why the aff doesn’t meet it and, as such, is not predictable or abusive in some way. Affirmative teams should prove they meet the neg’s interpretation or have a good counter interpretation. I am generally not persuaded by arguments such as “topicality is not a voting issue,” or “topicality is a racist argument.” Counterplans/Theory: I tend to err negative on counterplan theory. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote affirmative on dropped theory arguments or ones that are well developed. The aff should, however, answer each warrant made by the negative when going for a theory argument and prove why there has been unique in-round abuse. I do not believe the negative needs to have offense on theory to win that their CP is legitimate. Kritiks: For both sides: The framework of these arguments is very important to me. Teams should be able to defend why I should or should not view the debate through a policy lens. Prove why the debate you’d like to have is more beneficial than the debate the other team wants to have. For the neg, framework shouldn’t just be a discussion of why policy debate is bad but should have a specific application to the assumptions or applications of the harms of the 1AC. I don’t think the 1AC ever goes away. Aff teams can still weigh their impacts against the K, unless the neg can prove why this shouldn’t be true. Finally, I generally do not agree that personal stories have a place in debate rounds, nor do I believe that my job is to evaluate who is being more sincere or who has the better social goal inside or outside the debate round. I think that as a judge, I should be asked to vote for an argument, not for or against a certain debater or team. Neg teams: A discussion of the links to your argument is vital. This should include more than a generic claim that capitalism is bad. I think it is important to use specific instances from the aff’s rhetoric, evidence, or plan action to prove a link. Also, I think all kritiks should have a clearly defined alternative with a text that will not change throughout the debate. Aff teams: Most aff teams seem to have a difficult time proving that they don’t link to a K at all. As such, a solid framework defense and discussion of the impacts of the case or a straight up impact turn to the K seem to be most convincing. As for teams who run critical affirmatives, I believe they should include a plan text and have evidence supporting that course of action. Disadvantage/Case debates: I love them. I’d like to see a lot more of them. On the negative, make sure to properly explain each component of your disad and how it interacts with the case. 236 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Sternhagen, Fred Concordia College A Couple of General Things About My Orientation to Debate 1. I’m experiencing considerable conflict about what debate should be “about.” I think of this as a mater of determining what our curriculum should be at debate tournaments. a. For better or worse, I often think of myself as a debate “teacher.” Following from that, I think we need to consider what debate is “about” as an educational enterprise. That leads to the thinking about curriculum. I have seen a lot of debates in the last two or three years where my reaction was sort of on the line of, “That’s an interesting and probably important idea. But does is belong here? I don’t think that fits within our curriculum. However…. b. Usually the reaction to what I consider a departure from “the curriculum” strikes me as just a “defense of the orthodoxy.” That doesn’t play very well with me. Although on the outside I’m a balding, nearly 50 year old—on the inside there is still a lot of a 1970s guy with lots of hair! That person doesn’t react well to calls to a conservative agenda. So, if you would like to talk with me (in speeches) about why we need a more controlled approach to what happens in debate rounds—you need to do more than just make appeals that strike me as saying “new is weird.” You need to defend the benefits of a more controlled curriculum 2. I’m a lot less interested in what you debate about than how. You debate. An example. It is true that I often find the subject matter of politics disads, big federalism positions, etc. to be rather boring. However, that does not mean you would be better off not running such positions. This semester I judged a round where the neg did a big, very predictable Bush credibility disad. But I really enjoyed that debate because they did it so well! They were technically clean, had good evidence, were direct in their refutation. The way they debated was much more important to me than what they talked about. 3. Most debaters don’t have a good sense of their own limits in regard to fast delivery. Consequently, they regularly exceed what they can handle. I’m very convinced of that. a. That does not mean I would like debate to be slower. I know where to find extemp speeches if I wanted to listen to them. It does mean that most debaters would be more effective in front of me if they would be clearer/slower. b. Articulation is rarely the important variable. Seems to me the problem usually has to do with people moving out of English into some kind of truncated debate-speak that doesn’t make much sense. Things I’ll Try to Do 1. I try to preference decisions made in the last rebuttals. To me, this seems to emphasize and reward critical thinking by the debaters. 2. I will try to privilege decision calculus developed by the debaters. Even if I think the way you compare and weigh issues is pretty silly, I’ll try to use that decision calculus if the other team doesn’t present an alternative. 3. I like precise claims. a. Here’s a specific implication. If I don’t know what your claim/tag was, I’ll try to never call for that card (absent an ethical issue). Seems to me that to do so would mean I would be creating the claim for you. b. I think referencing an author’s name is a dismal replacement for making a claim. It’s almost as silly as saying “move evidence.” What kind of pitiful claim is that?!? 4. I don’t vote on procedural issues as much as it seems to me I should. I like such issues, but don’t vote for them often. Here’s what seems to be happening. a. There often is very little or no support for claims of abuse. The debater can’t read a card, so they need to provide some other kind of support. Usually—they don’t b. What I think of as a significance issue. You need to prove there is enough “abuse” to control my ballot. Let’s say that at the end of a round I thought an approach had skewed ground so that it was divided 51 percent for the aff and 49 percent for the negative. Would that be enough for me to vote on? Probably not. You need to persuade me that the “abuse” is important enough to 237 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet control my ballot. Personal Proclivities 1. It will probably help you to have good clear signposting. See the stuff above about clear claims. More specifically, my ability to hear high pitch sounds isn’t so good. This may be genetic, or it may have to do with some terrible bands I heard in my youth. IN any case, it can be hard for me to catch the transitions between arguments. My evaluation of your arguments is likely to be much more specific if I know where on argument stops and the next starts. 2. I usually talk to debaters a lot during speeches. That is, I give a lot of verbal feedback. However, that is much harder to do with panels…. 3. People tell me I’m quite easy to read nonverbally. I certainly try to be. I try to give you a lot of response. So, if you pay attention, that should help you. 5. Debaters need to do more comparative work. Lots more!!! 6. I have been very influenced by David Hingstman’s position that many arguments are not mutually exclusive. That you have a link turn does not necessarily establish that the link disappears. Both factors could very well exist in the same world. You should be assessing which is more important. See #5 concerning “comparative work.” 238 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Stevenson, Ron I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins their arguments in the debate. 1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these arguments over the course of the year. These debates are often filled with jargon at the expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a must. 4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 6. I have not seen many performance debates this year. Given my predisposition to policy debate, it is important that you are very clear how your argument functions and how I should attempt to evaluate it. Many times I just “don’t get it”. 7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence to substantiate you claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 239 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Storey, Ian I suppose that most NDT judges these days would like to think that they’re something akin to tabula rasa, and I’m no exception, I’ve voted on my share of arguments I personally found utterly repugnant. What follows should be read not as “these are things that you can and can not do in front of me,” but more “these are my predispositions, feel free to persuade me to think otherwise.” The first thing that should be noted to those sparse few who knew me when I actually debated is not to be misled by my practices into concluding that I am a “K Hack.” It’s true that most of my background is in theory, and since I interact with books much better than I do with people, my lit base is broad enough that it’s unlikely that I’ll be unable to interface with a given critical area. If anything, though, that tends to be as much a liability as a bonus for critically-oriented teams, because I have a harder time disengaging my own readings of authors from those in the round (I will do my best, it’s just a weakness I recognize). I tend to believe that arguments that expand the notion of the debate beyond “plan vs. SQ or policy alternative” are legitimate, but I can be supremely content returning to my roots and weighing nuclear war scenarios and disad timeframes… often times it’s even preferable. For me it comes down to a question of a team’s ability to articulate strong warrants for preferring their view of debate, in a sense that goes deeper than glib catch-phrases like “jurisdiction,” “ground,” “agency,” or “THE VIOLENCE!”. “Voter for fairness” is not a warrant, but neither is “Nietzche says.” I loooves me a good topicality debate, but I do mean –good-; a half-assed 2 min. block turned into an entire 2NR will rarely go well for you in my eyes. Likewise, a PIC with unique warrants for its legitimacy and specific solvency can be a truly beautiful thing. Truly beautiful. Perhaps my greatest weakness is for a well-crafted, devious, cohesive negative strategy that defines the direction of the debate, as opposed to a haphazard assortment of Ts, Ks and DAs in the hopes that the 2AC will mess something up. When it comes down to it, I actually have a mildly masochistic enjoyment of theory debates, as long as you commit to them rather than throwing down a hail of independent voters in the hopes that one makes it through the dent-resistant finish. My default assumptions on these questions are that theory (topicality included) is a game of contextually-grounded competing interpretations, all flavors of counterplans are acceptable as long as the negative can prove competition, dispositionality is legitimate (but conditionality may not be if dispositionality is), 2AR replans are A+, and permutations are tests of competition and not advocacies (thus legitimate en masse)…but again, feel free to tell me just how clearly wrong I and the other team are. I reserve the right to yell “CLEAR!” inappropriately loudly. Listen for that. Finally, because my overview was too long as usual, I want to close quickly with perhaps the most important thing about debating for me. I can respect teams who have strong beliefs in their positions, but in general, I think debaters and perhaps collegiate debate communities in general desperately need to take themselves less seriously. Relax, for the love of…I will vote on neither the degree of your personal indignation, nor on your ability to out-snipe your opponent. As hard as it is at the NDT, chill out and have a duly smug confidence in your rectitude, and you will get far more ethos points with me. Why doesn’t anyone read Adorno these days? It would make me happy. 240 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Strait, Paul George Mason A-spec/Vagueness: Your agent probably only needs to be as specific as the resolution. I tend to believe that if a portion of the plan is vague, either side can make it more specific by reading evidence or making arguments about what normal means would be. If an affirmative team has not specified their agent, but allows the negative to read evidence about normal means and, if they lose or fail to engage that debate, will defend that normal means agent, I can't imagine how any judge could vote negative on a-spec. O-spec: This argument is stupid. Topicality: I have voted on T a few times this year already. I generally think Extra-T is a voting issue. I think it is important to compare the various standards that you are winning with the ones you are losing. I can be persuaded by some affirmatives that they don't have to have the best interpretation/definition- rather, they only need to have one that isn't especially bad. Affirmatives that fail to have an interpretation, however, must be extremely sure that they 100% meet the negative interpretation (not just some 2ar explanation of how they meet what is described in the card the negative team read in the 1nc). Topicality probably comes before other theory issues. Plan text: You should have one, or have a very good set of reasons why you don't need one. If you don't have a plan text, you need to be very clear from the beginning of the debate what you will defend throughout the debate so that the negative team has something stable to attack. Disads: I like them. Make arguments about how your impact accesses/turns the advantage(s). I generally think debaters spend too much time/effort making time-frame arguments, which ultimately don't matter that much compared with things like magnitude. If the negative team wins that there is a 99.5% chance the plan will cause extinction tomorrow, and the affirmative team wins that there is a 100% chance the status quo will cause extinction in 10 years, I will almost certainly vote affirmative. Also, if the affirmative team claims to solve for otherwise inevitable extinction, negative teams should not rely on their disad turning the case, unless they win uniqueness to those turns (i.e., they win defense against that advantage). Otherwise it's a "try or die" situation. Counterplans: I am pretty balanced on theory issues. I think the burden is on whoever is making the theory argument to win it- I don't require the negative team to win any 'offense' in order to not lose to theory (although I think generally it is a good idea to have offense). I am probably slightly neg biased on dispo bad and agent cps bad, and a little aff biased on pics bad and object fiat bad. In order to win theory in front of me, you have to actually answer your opponent's arguments, rather than speech after speech just extend your own over and over again. If your opponent makes arguments in a speech and in your next speech you fail to answer them, don't think that in your final rebuttal it will be okay to do it then. More than other judges, I am aff biased on competition/permutation issues. I think that generally, if the entire text of the plan is in the counterplan text, the counterplan probably isn't competitive. I especially think this is true for counterplans of the consult X or condition plan on X variety. If you can think of a creative reason why the thing the CP excludes from your plan would have to be added to the plan legislation in the real world, then that CP is not functionally competitive. Critiques: I like them. I was a philosophy major in college, although my focus was on classical Greek philosophy and nineteenth century English and German philosophy, but I am reasonably up on a lot of the literature. I believe that almost all critique/kritik alternatives, the claims of the negative notwithstanding, use fiat, which I define as imagination plus endorsement. This means I can be persuaded by fiat abuse arguments by the affirmative, and just like in a CP fiat theory debate, I think the negative can bolster their position by reading evidence that discusses their specific alternative. I think Affirmatives have durable fiat with their permutations, which means if the K alternative rejects all of X, and the Perm rejects all of X minus the plan, it will be hard to persuade me that because of the plan element of the perm, X will coercively creep back into the system. Offense/Defense and other musings: Generally I evaluate arguments in terms of offense/defense, with notable exceptions. As explained above, I don't think the team that did not initiate the theory debate needs to win offense—it certainly helps, but if you win defense, you win. I judged a debate this year where the affirmative team convinced me that case debates are BETTER than agent counterplan / pic debates. I still voted negative, however, b/c I didn't 241 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet feel that my preference for one kind of debate over another justified the negative team losing. I like debates where people don't swear—but if a team wins the substance of a debate and swears, and the other team is like: "debate is better when people don't swear," I am likely to both agree with them and vote against them. A few times this year I have voted that there was zero risk of a link to a DA. In one instance, the aff was for the US to withdraw its GMO complaint. The neg said that the EU should just stop whining about GMOs. The aff said that the permutation, in which the EU said, "GMOs can come in now," and the US said, "we withdraw our complaint" did not link to any of the net benefits b/c it would be stupid for the US to not withdraw its complaint if the EU was letting GMOs come in. (I think that kind of counterplan is object fiat and probably not legitimate in a world where the aff's advantages stem from EU backlash to the U.S. pushing GMOs, by the way). Speaker Points: I generally give high points to people who are technically efficient, persuasive, nice, and clear (the easier time I have flowing you, the better). I will lower your points for excessive rudeness (its okay to be a jerk every once in a while if it is called for), excessive vulgarity/crudeness, stupidity, and technical errors (unless you have a reason why you aren't following the line by line, a la the fort). If you are passionate about your arguments, it can only help, and if you are bored, it can only hurt. If you force me to read a lot of cards, I will give you lower speaker points than you might have otherwise received. If someone has better cards than you but they are just asinine and you think the author is on crack, even if they are highly qualified, make some arguments like that and you will be pleasantly surprised by your speaker points (unless you sucked it up for the rest of the debate). If you have any questions or would like me to clarify any of the above, feel free to ask. 242 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Strange, Ken Dartmouth All of the following are personal preferences/biases, but I'll listen to just about anything. 1. I see generally see debates as a choice between the policy advocated by the affirmative and the policy advocated by the negative. My decision acts as an endorsement of one of those ideas. Fiat means nothing more than I will ignore the question of whether policies actually will be adopted; I do not pretend to be an real policy maker or that anything is actually done. Discursive and representational factors can supercede the policy choice. My bias is against conditionality in either the affirmative or the negative policies, but I don't think I've voted aff on the conditionality of a counterplan in a very long time. 2. I think topicality is best evaluated by a combination of definitional basis -- a card defining the term -- and reasonable limits on the number of potential cases. I do not think ground is a good standard; there is always some ground, and what is legitimate ground begs the question of what the resolution means. I think it is the negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation unreasonable rather than just proving the negative interpretation marginally better than the affirmative’s. My bias is that the affirmative must endorse topical action and not just react in some way to the resolution. I also believe that the purpose of topicality is to silence some voices so that the negative preparation burden is reasonable. Finally, I think that all I endorse is the plan, not new ways of thinking or metaphoric connections. 3. Practically the only limit on counterplans, from my perspective, is that they be competitive. Topical counterplans, agent counterplans, plan inclusive counterplans, etc. are fine, as long as there is a reason to reject the affirmative and vote for the counterplan. My bias is against "textual" competition and toward an evaluation of what the policies do. Permutations must be mechanical or logical combinations of the entire affirmative plan and parts of the counterplan; perms may not subtract from the plan or add elements not in either the plan or counterplan. 4. Kritiks/critiques are fine as long as the impact of the argument in the round is explained. I need a clear reason why the argument is a reason to vote against the affirmative or for the negative. I do not believe the negative always needs an alternative; some decisions come prior to the policy choice. For example, discursive problems do seem like they should come first. 5. Probably the most important thing for debaters to know is that my decision is influenced much more by explanation and reasons than by evidence. Of course, factual and authoritative support is often necessary as a basis for a claim, but in most debates at this level both sides are likely to fulfill those requirements. Thus, debates are more likely to be resolved on the basis of who tells a better story -- who constructs a reality that makes more sense to me. If the debaters do not do this, I read the cards and try to resolve issues by constructing reality for myself. I promise you that this is not what you want to happen. SO, SPEAK CLEARLY, INCLUDE REASONS IN YOUR LABELS, EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS, AND RESOLVE ARGUMENTS BY EXPLAINING WHY YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE THE ONE TO BE BELIEVED. A helpful hint in this regard: 2NR and 2AR are more likely to do a better job of resolving and explaining if they go line by line of the previous speech on the arguments they are going for, rather than just elaborating on their own arguments. That is, the pattern of these rebuttals should be "off our argument X, they say Y, but," followed by an explanation of why "Y" is untrue, unimportant, or irrelevant and why "X" is true, important, and relevant. 6. I think my position on evidence challenges is different from most, so I'll try to explain it briefly. Challenged evidence which is proven with the original to be falsified or out of context will result in a loss and zero points to the offenders. Here's where my view tends to differ: I do not think I should vote against debaters who challenge evidence which I decide is not out of context. That is because I do not see the challenge as an ethical or personal matter (and I believe the challengers should not make it ethical or personal). Debaters use lots of evidence they did not cut themselves; so they cannot be blamed ethically or personally for evidence problems. But for debate to function, offenders must still be held responsible and accountable for the evidence they use. 243 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 7. I think CX could be used more effectively in most debates, especially to clarify arguments and get commitments. CX answers are usually binding (e.g. what the plan does), but are relevant only as they are used to make arguments in speeches. I try to take notes on CX regarding matters like what the plan and counterplan actually do. Tag team CX is not preferred, but acceptable, especially when it makes things clearer for the rest of the debate. 244 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Strauss, David Neg Bias – with a large degree of reluctance, I will admit that I am not nearly as neg biased as I used to be. This is largely because I think it has become incredibly hard to be aff. Don’t get me wrong, I am still great for the neg, and really tough on the aff, but maybe not to the totally insane, you might as well forfeit if you are aff in front of me, degree that I used to be. How this plays out remains to be seen since I haven’t judged a round on the topic. Truth/TechTech way more important. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Comparisons of evidence/impacts done in the round way more important than quality of evidence, etc. I will vote on any argument if I think you are ahead on the tech, even if I think the argument rides the short bus. Offense/Defenseabsolutely. Zero risk makes no sense to me. Theory -tech is key with me, so if you are blowing someone out on this, you should go for it, but my proclivities are certainly strongly neg. I’ve never heard a good argument against reject theory not team that didn’t ultimately rely on the assumption that dispo/conditionality is bad. PICs and dispo are very tough. Conditionality is easier, but still hard. Ultra generic CPs which compete off severing the certainty of plan I am a lot closer on. In the middle on textual vs functional competition, with probably a very slight leaning toward textual comp with cross x as a binding addition, but really I could go either way on this. If you are aff, to win theory arguments in front of me, you should probably focus more on topic specific education and limits, and less on ground/strategy skew. I’m very partial to neg args that debate should be hard and that most strategy skew arguments are really strategic choice. An aff counter interpretation of what CP’s you do allow that solves a lot of the neg offense also helps a lot. On the bright side for the aff, I will probably never decide that X theory is bad, but not bad enough to vote against, if its more bad than good, then its bad. Also, and it pains me greatly to say this, I think I am becoming slightly more aff leaning on some of this, see my above comments about neg bias. Ultra Generic Strategies – I am certainly less ideological/hardline about this then some other msu judges (will/hardy, and yes, hardy, you are still an msu judge whether you like it or not, you benedict Arnold mother fucker.) that said, I think a lot of these (con-con, consult cp, etc) are fairly lame, and while I will clearly vote for them, this will be reflected in your speaker points. Also, if your team name is “George Washington LW” by “reflected in your speaker points” I mean “cumulative 48 points.” ASPECblow me. KritiksI am way more open to these than I think a lot of people would guess. If your K is basically conventional debate bad, then you should strike me. I actually wish I could judge these sometimes just so that I could make debate history as the first judge ever to award negative speaker points. If you don’t read a plan, strike me. But if you just want to go for your Foucault, deep eco or statism argument, then go right ahead. Basically, I am decent to good for the critical left and terrible for the activist left. On framework questions, if debated equally by both sides, I would probably determine that the neg should get their k alt, but that the aff should also be able to access their plan as offense; however, a superior team could certainly win a framework argument in either direction, and even if the aff gets to access their case, there are still obviously a lot of ways that I could conclude that the kritik is more important. I find the neg wins a lot of these debates just because they will throw out like 6 reasons their kritik comes first, (turns the case, prefiat, ontology 1st, reps 1st, alt solves the case, etc) and the aff will drop one. If you are aff, and you drop one of these arguments, it is very likely that you will lose nearly instantly. Try or DieI’m a hack. Its my one area of aff bias, tho the neg can make this work for them too. Basically, if you have no harm related defense against extinction, you will lose. If an aff won 100% risk of extinction harm, 1% risk of solvency, and the neg won 99% risk of extinction disad in the exact same timeframe, I would vote aff, because there remains a 1% chance of survival, whereas if I voted neg, extinction would be certain. Topicalityyes. It’s a voter. It’s a question of competing interpretations. Reasonability arguments are almost impossible to get me on. I think aff teams focus too much on the quantity of cases that the neg 245 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet interpretation allows and not enough on whether those cases are feasible for the aff to defend. I can fairly easily be persuaded that contrived interpretations which are artificially more limiting are not very good. 246 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Sullivan, John I'm not very familiar with the topic as it has been debated this year. I only judged at Gonzaga and Harvard. It would behoove you therefore to treat me more or less like a moron. Or maybe like an old person who was smart, in 1922. 1. ARGUMENTS You can run whatever you want however you want. a) My educational background (philosophy, poetics, Buddhism) facilitates (if it facilitates anything) an understanding of and appreciation for critical arguments and long hair. However, I am aware of this and concentrate on re-understanding each argument in each debate. So I will still say I don't know what "ontology" means at the end of a debate in which it was not explained. My voting record on these arguments is pretty mixed. b) The general rule is that if a piece of evidence is not questioned or refuted in some manner, I will not unilaterally intervene and disrupt the default consensus. It is your responsibility to flag pieces of your own evidence to indicate what arguments they support. I suggest using catch phrases from the text and the authors' names. I suggest doing this at a pace that I can flow (see 1922 comment above). I probably read less evidence after the round than the average. I probably flow more of the evidence than the average. I probably don't actually know what the average is. d) Dropped arguments are conceded, no matter their quality. Argument, though, is defined as claim + warrant. I am probably stricter than the average with regard to new arguments in rebuttals. 2. SPEAKER POINTS a) Point inflation is bad, but I do not intend to penalize individual debaters in an effort to exert drag on the trend. I do, though, hang out on the lower end of the 3-4 point scale that we seem to have become accustomed to. b) Show respect for your opponents. This is particularly important during the C/X, which, by the way, is particularly important to me. While it is fine with me if one team takes its prep time to continue asking questions after C/X expires, it is also fine with me if the other team chooses not to answer any of those questions (not involving the exchange of evidence). 3. OTHER BUSINESS a) Mark your evidence clearly indicating what parts of cards are read and what parts aren't. If you are in the habit of making on-the-podium decisions to not read the whole highlighted or underlined portion, you'd best bring a pen with you. Marking needs to occur before evidence is handed over to the other team. I am also not too fond of using a lot of the other team's prep in order to do your marking (i.e., Hold on a sec, let me mark them before I give them to you). Some of this is inevitable, but keep it to a minimum please. b) Avoid stealing prep time. When you say you're ready, be ready. If you're ready to be ready, that's still prep time. c) I am sensitive to the phrase "out of context" when it is applied to the opposition's evidence. To me, it is a flag raising the possibility that the round should be stopped in order to evaluate the accusation that a piece of evidence has been unethically excerpted. If you believe this to be true, have on hand a copy of the source material. d) We can discuss decisions if you like. It bothers me a bit to see debaters who clearly disagree with part of my decision not speaking up. Often I feel like it means I am not explaining my decision clearly. So please ask if you have a question. In my "time", people yelled, threw things and hit stuff a lot more after debates. We don't need that, but discussion is good. 247 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Symonds, Adam A preempt: I include detailed information about my predispositions for debates, but they are nothing more than abstract opinions about debate that have little to no influence over the way I have adjudicated debates. I find myself to be more a critic of argument than a policy-maker. This whole critical/policy divide doesn’t make any sense to me: good arguments are good arguments in any format. Among the top debates I have had the opportunity to judge, I would rank both critical and policy debates. This doesn’t mean I will vote for craziness for the sake of being crazy – I’ll call bulls*** on bad policy and critical arguments alike. In general critical arguments make more sense to me on the negative (as they are unbound by topical constraints), but I can certainly be persuaded to bracket off such concerns in light of the affirmative. Some things that I find particularly persuasive include: Impact comparisons: Answering the following questions usually coincides with a W: What is my role as a judge? What arguments are of paramount concern for me to evaluate? One caveat here: “fiat is an illusion” or “discourse comes first” don’t make any sense to me – these seem like arbitrary ways to not evaluate the affirmative and are wholly unnecessary to engage in critical debate. Good criticisms and philosophical inquiries require no such crutches – their impact work is well developed. Given the critical turn in debate, it is particularly important for you to foreground your framework for the debate. Typically, my decision starts by determining who controls the framework for argument analysis. Whatever type of debate you prefer, PLEASE provide overviews to frame your arguments in the rebuttals. I find that the lack of framework analysis in the overviews tends to disproportionately disadvantage the negative for what it’s worth. Even if … because…: Yeah, I ripped this idea off from Becky Galentine, I know, but I have yet to hear a more effective tool for rebuttals. You aren’t winning everything. So it would behoove you to protect yourself by indicating why you still win even if your opponent should win some of their important arguments. Evidence comparisons: Bottom line, the best teams in the country compare the critical evidence and give me the lens through which to look at the evidence. Treat this like voting in Chicago: do it early and often. Theory Debates: Those who want to win theory debates (including T I’d say) in front of me generally are funny, have offensive and defensive arguments (possibly even separated as such!?!?) and use analogies. Think Corey Rayburn. One other note here – seriously do not expect me to vote on quick un-developed cheap shots Permutations: I would be remiss in all of this if I did not point out how important these are in my perspective of debate. Both teams need to pay close attention to permutations to protect themselves. I frequently find debates won or lost because not enough argumentation occurs on this part of the debate. Affirmatives put themselves at risk by either not explaining the function of the permutation or messing up theoretical objections. Most important in this regard – what are the net benefits to the permutation? Negatives put themselves at risk by not responding to affirmative explanations about the permutation’s ability to solve all the links to the K by including the alternative. 248 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Taylor, James “JT” TOPICALITY: I like smart T debates with good contextual evidence… SPEC/THEORY ARGS: I’ll vote here easily if you win…offense is pretty important. More important are warrants and comparative analysis. KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE: I like kritiks, but find myself listening to quite a few poor K rounds. On this topic, I’m a sucker for old school Disciplinary Power/Luke…but generally not a fan of most environmental philosophy args…And I take gendered and sexist language in debate very seriously. Not a fan of: Zizek, nihilism, or Rorty. I give equal weight, in theory, to the perm and the link…too many people confuse “links” and “framework” issues….be careful when asking me to intellectually endorse or personally endorse your argument…At the end, don’t be upset if you didn’t convince me and lose. I am most familiar with hermeneutics, Foucault, gender args, Marxism and space. Links of omission are not links. Open to all forms of debate. One caveat, I think you should make an argument in the 1AC or 1NC…that means not just reading a story for nine minutes, but there has to be some application to the case, or resolution depending on the side. CPs: I think pics are good! Consult CPs are weak. Political process?...wish you had something better to say…but then again…Anarchy/world gov, etc…? sure, why not…at least they’re interesting! Voluntary, well, OK…Voluntary & threaten (with Biz con), not that’s just bad. DISADS: Sick of reading biz con shells with environmental regs links against cases that are just not regulations, or environmental policies…lots of sweet politics stories for the topic, tons of great oil disads, etc. Make ‘em unique an world ending…unless you’re running a PIC, then it just has to be a broken fingernail impact for me. CASE & IMPACTS: I LOVE A HUGE CASE DEBATE! Sometimes it’s hard to garner UQ for the turns, but a deep case debate (especially at the end of the season) will definitely be rewarded in terms of speaks. A “no off, every page of case” 1NC will be off the charts…beyond this, I think Negatives too often let the Aff weigh at least most of the case against the K or disads. As far as scenarios go, I’m probably the biggest advocate in the activity for the space debate…good or bad. I’m one of those “crazy” people that truly believe we must “get off the rock,” but I also realize the inherent dangers, given the unpredictable nature of human beings and technology…a realist dreamer so to speak…I love to hear a little Red Spread, Oil security, China, India, Iran, Prolif/Nuclear War (yeah, includes Spark), and specific environment scenarios. When it comes down to it, give me a warranted reason to vote. Sometimes it’s because “T comes before Dispo”, and sometimes because “Racism is just more important that your spending disad!” Regardless, you must have a warrant. 249 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Tews, Richard General I will listen to any argument form (kritiks, disads, counterplans, topicality, narrative, poetry, etc) and usually be quite content as long as they are argued well. While I debated I ran some really weird strategies and am totally willing to listen to and vote for this type of argument. I have sat through a great many case and disad debates this year though and am totally willing to vote for normal policymaking stuff. Whatever the argument you choose it is imperative that you do IMPACT ANALYSIS at the end; there is nothing that grates on my nerves more than having to compare impacts for myself after the round. I think that my favorite round would be one that involves a large involved case debate, with lots of analysis and actual arguments instead of just piles of cards. Theory I am all right on theory, though it will take quite a bit of time and explanation to get me to vote on a theory argument. This means that I often don't write down very fast "blippy"/not explained arguments. This means that I often have trouble understanding theory args that are no more than two or three words, and done at top speed. Flowing I would describe my flowing as average, probably about middle fast. If you are going too fast/incomprehensibly I will simply stop writing and if you correct the mistake I will start writing again. Kritik I enjoy a good kritik debate, emphasis on the good, meaning don't run a kritik in front of me just for the hell of it because I said that I like them. Unless given some sort of other calculus I view kritik perms as no link arguments, though I am open to people advocating them in front of me, you just have to make and explain the argument as for why you can advocate the perm. After some thought I have decided that though I like kritik debate, and definitely believe that there is a place for kritik in debate, I often do not like how debaters argue kritiks. To me kritiks are not like a disad, meaning that I do not appreciate teams that merely spew cards on the K and then expect me to sort the cards out after the round. I would much rather see a team go slower on the K and get in depth on the warrants of their evidence. also I would much rather have a clear articulation of a "link" (even an analytic link) than have a team read a thousand cards that I later have to interpret for myself. I guarantee that people will not be happy with my decisions if I have to do all the thinking after the round. Don't get me wrong I have nothing wrong with speed in general; I just think that it is more strategic to slow down on kritiks and explain the warrants to me instead of leaving everything up to interpretation. Also I generally operate under the idea that fiat exists in a round if no team brings up the issue. meaning that if you want fiat to be "illusory" that is cool but make that argument, don't assume that just because you run a kritik that I will automatically through fiat away for you. Nothing should be assumed if you want me to think a certain way about something, like the existence/ or non-existence of fiat, make the argument and I will think that way, but if you don't mention it I will default to my normal way of thinking. This is just an FYI don't take this as meaning that I am married to the idea of fiat, I just need to hear the words that it does not exist. Evidence One addition that has just occurred after my first few years of judging is that I do not read a lot of evidence. I will every so often read cards but not very often, i.e. this year I have probably read 3 cards after the round. I believe strongly that this activity is about persuasion and where I could read every card and reconstruct what I thought happened in a round; I do not find this very helpful to the debaters, who are supposed to be learning the skill of persuasion. Also, the burden is much higher on kritik rounds, meaning that I will more often read a uniqueness card on a politics disad, than I will read a link card on a kritik. I know this is a bit of a double standard but deal with it, if it really makes you angry-that is what strikes are for. 250 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thomas, Greg Eastern New Mexico University It's fairly simple. I judge what happens in round, based on the argumentation presented in the round. That means, I am pretty much open to anything that is argued well. That being said, I am not saying that I go into the round ignorant of all of the issues. I know what China is and if a team runs topicality, I will know what that means too. I prefer that the round be civil, but that being said, I probably won't consider anything in my decision that isn't made an issue by one of the teams in the round. 251 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thomas, James Churchill West Ga. I debated for three years in high school at Pace Academy in Atlanta, and four years in college at the University of West Georgia, concluding in 2005. I enjoyed modest success at both levels (TOC qualified in high school, NDT first-round bid in college, typically received speaker awards and debated in the elimination rounds, etc.) “Do you have any ideological predispositions about the nature of debate – such as how it should take place or what it should look like – that will affect how you make your decision?” None that will affect how I make my decision. Despite the fact that for the last two years in college I debated almost exclusively using non-traditional arguments (though usually employing traditional tactics such as speed, line-byline, evidence, etc.), the way I judge debates will not reflect this. I do have opinions about what practices in debate I think are messed up, and I certainly have strong feelings about how messed up it is that the activity isn’t diverse enough, but my first and foremost concern is being an impartial and fair judge to whatever arguments the debaters want to employ. I feel it would be doing my “civilization” of non-traditional debate a disservice if I judged debates in a way that would more favorable to them than other teams – teams have to earn my ballot even if I agree in my heart with what they’re doing. In the event that clash between certain issues is severely lacking to the extent that I have to impose some of my predispositions about debate, I hereby disclose some of those predispositions, noting that I’m by no means wed to them in the presence of arguments to the contrary: # I don’t think that either team has the right to any particular type of argument, or the ability to predict arguments, or the ability to limit the other side's strategic choices. # I don’t think there is any pre-agreed to understanding as to how we should debate or what it means to affirm the resolution. # I think that theoretical issues against certain types of arguments (PICs, Intrinsicness Permutations, etc.) are reasons to reject the argument, but not necessarily to vote against the team who initiated the theoretically illegitimate argument. # All stylistic approaches to debate are legitimate, and music/film/art/poetry/etc. all have argumentative dimensions. # Fiat, if a team chooses to employ it, is a means by which a team can envision a certain decision-making body having adopted their proposal – note that I used the past conditional tense of the verbs “to have” and “adopt.” Many politics link stories tend to assume an interpretation of fiat using the conditional future tense of these verbs, example: “If the Congress were to adopt this proposal, various lobbies would backlash and Bush would have to respond in a certain way to save face.” Under a past conditional interpretation of fiat, the implementation of the proposal is assumed to have already occurred, consequences that are intrinsic to the proposal and inevitable upon its passage will happen, while the intricacies of implementation itself (such as the lobbying needed to change congresspersons’ minds) are taken for granted as having already occurred. This doesn't mean that all politics disads are irrelevant, but it's a quirk of mine that may become relevant depending on what the link story is. # I do believe that there can be literally zero percent risk of a disad or zero percent risk of solvency. # I believe that this activity has little if any access to the outside superstructures of the world, and that my ballot doesn't actually cause any form of change, except possibly for changing the makeup of our community itself. These predispositions may also come into play if certain arguments are severely underdeveloped. Example: “ASPEC is a voting issue because we lose our politics links.” This is a claim without a warrant, or maybe more accurately a link without an impact. It has not reached the point at which it becomes an argument rather than a mere sentence. There must be at least some reason why I should care that you lose your politics links. Although I will consider uncontested arguments as true and won by the side that initiated them, uncontested sentences do not enjoy this luxury. “Will you read evidence?” 252 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet If I have to, but typically not. I will do everything I can to resolve an issue in the debate without having to call for people’s evidence after the debate. If one team is doing more work and explaining various warrants within their evidence (or even just telling a persuasive story without really refering to evidence) while another team is just extending taglines and citations hoping that such invocations do the work for them of making arguments within the evidence that has been previously read, I will reward the former. This is even true in debates that are intricate, complex, and evidence-heavy; I only read evidence if I feel there is no possible way to resolve the issue otherwise. Comments on decorum and style: I don’t care how you dress, if you wish to sit down to speak, or employ tag-team cross-examination. I’m capable of understanding a variety of different styles, though teams should be prepared to defend whatever style they choose if the issue is pressed by the other team. Naughty naughty language is fine as long as you're able to defend it if someone critiques it. I curse like a sailor so you're probably not going to make me uncomfortable if you like to punctuate arguments with obscenities. Don't be a jackass. Being an assclown or a smartass is usually OK. If you don't know the subtle differences between jackasses and smartasses, then it probably doesn't matter anyway. Repeating the other team's bad arguments in a funny, condescending voice tends to go a long way with me. No, seriously, it does. "So, uh, will you vote on the K?" I'm willing and able to vote on pretty much any argument you can come up with as long as it exists at least one step above completely stupid. I think that if debated well everything in your tubs, backpacks, or just your mind likely meets this criterion (assuming you don't carry OSPEC in your tubs). I am considerably more well-read on "critical" literature than traditional, realist, policy-oriented literature, so that might be worth taking into account - I haven't cut a hegemony card or politics uniqueness in years - but I don't prefer either if they are debated out well. Speaker point range (subject to change if you act like a jackass): < 26: Deficient. 26: Lots of work needed to make for a competitive debate. 26.5: Bare minimum for making for a competitive debate. 27: Getting the job done, but nothing more. 27.5: Average / reasonable job done, room for improvement, but nothing too glaring. 28: Solid job done, made for a competitive debate. 28.5: Solid job done, technical and/or performative skill was exhibited, made the debate extremely winnable. 29: Everything needed for a 28.5 plus you made the debate particularly enjoyable for me to judge. 29.5: The kind of speeches I’m going to talk about at the bar that night. 30: Perfection. I don’t ever remember giving one of these. These are the kind of speeches that I’m going to talk about at the bar next week. Random aside/rant: Tim Mahoney refused to hire me for the St. Mark’s high school tournament because of his perception about my lack of “commitment to the principle of switch side debating.” I am committed to competitive debate and the idea that each debate should have one winner and one loser (I don't give double wins and I don't vote affegative). “Switch 253 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet side debate” is too vacuous of a phrase for any intelligent person to proclaim a commitment to. I am committed to intellectual freedom and the ability for both teams to present any vision of debate and any arguments within that vision that they see fit so long as they are prepared to justify them against their opponents. The fact that Tim made this assumption about me (as well as my debate partner and hetero life mate Joe Koehle) without even asking me about how I judge or think about debate seems to confirm what I suspect is true of most of the debate community, particularly the high school community: y'all think I'm a complete nut case and will judge a debate with the consistency and ability of a schizophrenic hyena. Whatever. Like I care what y'all think. I just think it's hilarious that from what I've heard I was actually the subject of some NDCA meeting before the TOC concerning how to take back the judging pool at that tournament from "crazy judges" like myself. As if the TOC judging pool is actually at risk of being anything other than reactionary and shitty to begin with! As if strike sheets don't solve that problem anyway! Strike me, it gives me more time to take naps. But you should know that it's a pretty baseless assumption and I'm probably a bit more on your side than you think. (ever notice how the WGLF 1AC's made fun of the other non-traditional/"project" teams?) And aren't the people who never try to do anything except read framework against non-traditional teams the ones who truly don't "switch sides?" My email address is jthomas1 (at) my.westga.edu 254 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thomas, Robert I have been the policy coach at Stanford University for two years. I have judged some during that time and usually watched rounds when not judging. I was very active for many years on the national high school circuit for many years. I debated NDT for Emory University in the 1980s and subsequently judged for them and Georgia State on occasion before switching to High school coaching. Now I'm back in the college game. In general I find myself somewhere in the midle in the kritik/performance/activism vs. policy debate. I will definitely vote on kritiks if they are well reasoned and consistent, and I can be persuaded by activism, but I tend not to be a fan of performance. I enjoy philosophical debates, but not kritik throwdowns where 5 more long cards in the rebuttals substitutes for resolution of the issues. I'm pretty liberal on theory, don't mind pics, intrinsicness, etc. I'm not a big fan of various spec args or T, but I'll vote on anything that's debated well. Stylistically, I very much prefer crystalization in the debate to card wars. I will generally not read a lot of cards after the debate. I think it is the job of the debaters to explain what the hell is going on, not some absent author. I expect extensions from the evidence and substantive comparison beween evidence. If your style is to read a ton of cards and never put it all together hoping that I'll sort it out, you'll be dissapointed in my judging. Debate either straight up or more kritiky, I enjoy both. I believe that the debate round is a forum to advance education, search for truth, clarify philosophical and activist positions, and a challenging intellectual competition, a (meaningful) game to be played. I can't say I'm a big fan of being preached to, however, regardless of the "urgency" of your philosophical viewpoint. Also, I expect an atmosphere of respect for everyone involved in the round, as well as for people to chill and just enjoy the activity. 255 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Thompson, Jacob I see my role in the round as that of an adjudicator and critic of argument. I will try to be as neutral as possible, but everyone has certain predispositions, so here are mine (although I have voted against the arguments I prefer and I have voted for arguments I dislike). Debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done. Fiat is concerned with the merits of the affirmative plan. Playing this game is an ideal forum for us to educate ourselves, have fun, and train the opinion leaders and policy makers of the future. Negative Strategy--I prefer, ideally, to listen to large well researched-case specific debates with specific disadvantages (or generic disadvantages with specific links and a good story) a strategic PIC, and some consistent critical arguments. I believe in preserving maximum strategic (and theoretical) flexibility for negative teams. Contradictions aren’t always a bad thing early in the debate (as long as the block boils it down and the 2NR is consistent) , although I have voted on performative contradiction arguments before. Topicality--Topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I am not a huge fan, although I understand that it is important to get rid of patently ridiculous affirmatives. I am not persuaded by reverse voting issues. To win a T debate in front of me it is best to prove actual abuse. I will vote on Extra-T (see plan flaw arguments.) Affirmative Strategy—As a debater, I typically ran huge middle of the road cases with big impacts. I think plan wording is VERY important; it’s sacred for negative pre-round prep and strategy. A miswritten plan typically means that the affirmative team will lose (as long as the negative team argues the importance of correct and precise plan wording). I will vote on plan flaw arguments and 1 word PICS. I think more affs should straight (link or impact) turn disads. A good 1AR should try to bury the 2NR by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to extend warrants inside your evidence, doing more than just saying “extend the Smith ’02 evidence,” you should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Second I think a good 1AR will also give a judge some pen time to flow analytics (especially theory). Critical arguments—I will vote for the K (whatever that means these days). I am naturally not predisposed to vote on certain critical arguments such as silence good, “we read poetry, so we win,” and anyone who says performativity and can’t explain what that means in terms of what I said above in relation to fiat. Affirmatives should always permute the critical arguments, Negative alternatives/advocacies should have some discernable text (either one that you have written or a line or 2 in your ev.) I think that pragmatism, and certain Burke arguments are good affirmative permutations. A good critical argument will have specific “links” to the affirmative plan, and very specific implications that are compared to the other team’s implications. CPs—No 1NC is complete without a CP (or 2 or 3…run lots of them if you want). I believe that dispositionality is less abusive than conditionality. If you plan on just going for the CP anyway, just make it non-conditional. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan. I do not think that a negative team should 256 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet be afraid to CP in the 2NC (it is a constructive, and the risk of a straight turn in the 1AR should check any abuse). These 2NC counter plans could be used to make external impact turns or uniqueness takeouts go away. Other Things— 1) If I can’t understand you I will say “clearer” please just slow down a notch or speak more clearly. 2) Debate should be fun, be nice and respectful to everyone involved. 3) Answer CX questions, don’t be evasive. 4) I will read cards after a debate, especially if the debaters don’t explain them. If a card doesn’t in my opinion pass the “laugh test” I am unlikely to buy that particular argument, even if the other team does not talk about it (although they should). 5) I keep a semi-running clock—if it’s not speech time it’s CX or prep (excluding road maps, time to find lost flows or evidence, or bathroom/water breaks). Don’t steal prep. 6) New cases at the NDT are fine… in a round with a new aff I won’t hold negative link ev to as exacting a standard as I normally would. 257 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Topp, Sarah Years judging/coaching: This is my third Rounds Judged on this year’s topic: Many...I don't know the number. Thank goodness Bruschke's system will tell you. The debate round is largely what you make of it. I am more interested in seeing good debates than I am interested in seeing particular arguments. That being said, I think it is totally sweet when neg teams have a tight strat in the 1NC. I prefer this to the approach of "let's throw some shit out there and see what sticks" (although I understand the utility of the latter). I see a lot of kritik debates and am finding more and more often that negative teams fail to apply their links well to the affirmative. Instead, they make descriptive assertions about their evidence (i.e. Monolithic images of China are dangerous. THIS IS NOT A LINK and if you went for this, you will likely lose in front of me). I also see a lot of “clash of civilization” sorts of debates where one team defends traditional policy-making and the other defends an alternate framework. I have been more likely to find in favor of the traditional policy teams. I believe this has more to do with the debaters’ beliefs that I err “kritikal” and non-traditional teams under compensating than it does with any actual personal leanings I have. I really like good topicality debates, though I rarely see them. In fact, for some reason, it is not uncommon for teams to not run t in front of me, even in the 1NC. I think this is kinda silly. I generally think topicality is about competing interpretations and the relative offense/defense gained by each. I lean negative on counterplan theory, but this does not mean I would not vote against a team who can't defend their counterplan. I have begun to read a lot of evidence after the debate. Doing so allows me to talk more fully about the arguments in the round. My reading of the evidence, however, will not supercede the work that you do in debates. The one rule of my judging that trumps all others is that you need to MAKE COMPLETE ARGUMENTS. Claim, warrant, data/evidence. Really, anything less doesn’t cut it, especially if it includes the phrase, “That’s a voting issue” with no prior or following explanation. If something is important and you are banking on it, be sure it rises to the level of argument. If you are looking for good speaker points, do the following: a) Enjoy yourself. Don’t take yourself so seriously. b) Tell jokes…sometimes about yourself, sometimes about the other team’s evidence and even 258 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet sometimes about the other team. I even really like terrible jokes (my favorite is "how do you make a facial tissue dance?") c) Cross-ex. Do it well. If you have questions, ask. 259 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Trautman, Todd I try to write this more as advice for debating in front of me rather than a philosophy itself. If I had to place myself in a "paradigm" I would say I judge from an academic game playing perspective. That means if it becomes necessary to intervene to make a decision, I try to base that intervention on what is equitable to both sides (as opposed to other proclivities judges might have). BACKGROUND: I coached in college for 6 years at Kansas State, Truman State, and Concordia College. For the past 5 years I have been attending graduate school at the University of Illinois. During that time I have not been a full time coach, but have judged at 1-2 tournaments a semester. COUNTER-PLANS: Debaters freqently fail to explain the implications of their arguments in counter-plan theory debates. For instance, if the aff. "wins a perm" what does this mean? A variety of implications are possible, and rarely do teams explain what this might mean. EVIDENCE: I typically only read evidence that is specifically talked about in the round where I need to evaluate the quality of the external quotation in forming a decision. I think the trend toward long pieces of evidence often makes the arguments made by debaters more difficult to understand. 1AR/2AC-Based on the times when I have been on panels, I seem to have higher standards than other judges for tracing arguments back to specific 1AR arguments. I am more willing to simply reject 2AC arguments than others. CRITICAL THEORY: My academic background has expossed me to only a few arguments from this perspective, so that is probably more of a limitation for debaters than any actual perceived bias. I have certainly judged more policy analysis rounds than those framed as other approaches, but I don't necessarily prefer policy rounds. When I have judged rounds where performance or critique arguments are presented it often occurs that one side simply doesn't engage the other side's arguments at all. I am unlikely to vote simply that something is "in the wrong forum" (or variations on that theme), but I am likely to vote based on arguments that framing the debate in some fashion doesn't allow for a fair division of ground. Hope this helps, since I don't judge much anymore feel free to ask questions. 260 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Turner, John I care most about clash and comparison. Start analyzing and comparing evidence early in the debate. Use some of your prep time for reading evidence instead of conserving all ten minutes for the 2NR/2AR so you can make a series of good but new claims about their evidence. Specific link/refutation based on claims made in opposing evidence is underutilized. THE CASE. Debate it. Both sides. Any kritik I've seen this year would have gained from more in depth clash with the case--both aff and neg. Lack of impact analysis has been an issue in many debates I've judged this year. Even if you're trying to get away from traditional utilitarian approaches you need arguments that compare the significance of the aff/neg. T--I prefer arguments about limits in place of ground. Case lists are a big help. I judge many "framework" arguments that would sound more persuasive as T violations. Most T debates I judge spend too much time on the link and not enough on impact. Most cases that kritik T could be beaten with some well-thought out analytic claims; however, if you feel disposed to pull out the T stick spend enough time on the impact to make it worth your while. My judging preferences reflect a variety of influences. I don't have much of an ideological stake in any particular form or style of debate. I enjoy most any debate argument that is well executed and that you seem interested in making. Most of the intriguing arguments I've seen this year make an attempt to bridge the "policy/kritik" divide. I spend far to much of my own time on philosophical abstractions--debates are more interesting when they avoid remaining in the realm of pure abstraction. Perception--it matters. I will not read cards to reconstruct an argument for you. Use evidence to support arguments, not substitute for them. I am hard-pressed to think of an argument that I would not vote on. Aff Choice is probably the closest. Most "framework" time should be spent instead on establishing a defense of specificity and the "philosophy" of the case. I'm not big on "offense/defense." In baseball terms, I enjoy 1-0 pitchers' duels with great defensive stops and tough tactical decisions more than an 18-14 slugfest. Not all kritik alts can/should be articulated in counterplan terms. Many debates with textual alternatives that read like counterplans sound like old utopian cps in slightly modified form. A place for creativity for both neg and policy affs would be arguments that respect that some alts are not/should not be utopian cps. Most of the work I've done on this topic is directed at pragmatic/reformist arguments answering the radical greens. I am probably biased the reformist direction if only because I've had the "aff hat" on most of the year. I act far more grumpy during most debates than I actually am. I know this is probably frustrating. I'm working on a way to remedy it--in the mean time, please know that if I am grumpy it almost certainly has nothing to do with you. I am not great with eye-contact--if you see me looking up it's probably either because you are debating exceptionally well or quite poorly. 261 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Varda, Scott I have never written a judge philosophy I am comfortable with. I like well argued debates, humor, and an ability to think without your blocks. I rarely vote on Aspec, or any other procedural argument for that matter. In round abuse seems important to get my ballot. Alternatives to Kritiks should be treated like CP's, but they rarely are. CP's should be treated like plans with similar solvency burdens, but they rarely are. James Thomas is sweet, and someday I'll vote for his arg's, I think. Run whatever you want, but watch my reaction. There are few judges who are more expressive than me during speeches. Qualifications are good, unless your indicting published evidence generally. I disclose speaker points after debates. Be smart, be funny, be professional. In that order gets great points. 262 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Vats, Anjali What you Really Need to Know: I will vote for the team that wins based on my flow and the quality of their evidence. The things you say are as important as the evidence you read, though I will still read a lot of cards. The best ways to lose in front of me are to drop arguments or fail to adapt or clash (especially against K teams). Generally, offensive arguments are the path of least resistance to winning. I flow pretty damn well most of the time. Clarity is a must. Speed is not a problem, but exercise common sense on theory debates or analytics. I have some predispositions though I try not to let them influence my decisions. Policy…or Critique? Eh. I judge a lot of crazy K debates. Ultimately I don’t have a major predisposition either way. I don’t know a lot about this K goo but I’m relatively intelligent and can figure it out if you explain your arguments. Some of the arguments I have voted on this year include Hip Hop Good, Capitalism Bad, various incarnations of Zizek, Consult Japan, PICs Bad, Politics and various counterplans and disads. Policy: Policy debates are great and unfortunately a dying breed. I’m not the biggest fan of politics but I’ll vote on it. I love a specific PIC and net benefit. Counterplans are useful and States almost always solves the case. It’s to the neg’s benefit to say that the disad turns the case and has a faster time frame. Absent a very good reason, you have to defend what’s in your plan. Finally, the number of debates I have judged this year is a bit deceptive. I judge mostly K or Consult CP debates (thanks Emory). My familiarity with permits debates, for example, is relatively low so plan accordingly. “Traditional” Critique: I enjoy a good, articulate K debate. I do not enjoy hearing a string of words such as “ontology,” “capitalism” and “imagine the impossible” strung together with the word “Zizek.” I tend to believe that the aff permutation still links to the K so it must have a net benefit. The neg is not obligated to have an alternative. Theory arguments are underutilized in K debates on both sides. An aff that doesn’t answer the “impact” to the K will likely lose. However, I have a relatively high threshold for impact explanation for the neg. The neg generally needs a framework to make the case irrelevant. I hate that Ks of the disads have become a means of not answering arguments, but it’s also dangerous not to answer them. Teams tend to not take these arguments seriously to their detriment. I’ll entertain language critiques. “Non-Traditional” Critique: I don’t particularly like the music and video inclusive K type arguments, but I end up voting for them frequently because teams grossly mishandle them or fail to take them seriously. I’m somewhere in the middle; it’s not great to roll with eight disads, but going too far left is also scary. I like topical plans (though I get that if you are aff against these arguments you might not want one). I’m not a fan of in-round activism because it tends to be alienating in a competitive environment. Still, it’s just a general feeling not a rule. Making intelligent, intuitive arguments, listening and being respectful is vital in these debates. Clash is a necessity on both sides. Problems arise when style swallows substance or the K becomes an excuse not to answer arguments. In short, my politics are often consistent with these arguments, but not my views about debate. 263 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Topicality: I’m probably not the world’s best T judge. That being said, I do think that topicality is compelling against cases that are blatantly not-topical. It’s debatable whether T is a voting issue. I will vote on the K of T even though it causes me physical pain. No matter which way I vote, T is not genocidal… Theory: PICs, dispositionality, neg fiat and international fiat are probably good. I think a little less firmly, that conditionality and 2NC counterplans, are probably not great. A great (read winning) theory debate includes a coherent interpretation, offense and a comprehensive line by line debate. Procedurals and Voting Issues: I hate spec arguments. I have and will continue to vote on them, but your speaker points will likely reflect my belief that extending these arguments does not require a ton of skill. If they drop that “their perm is intrinsic they should lose,” you need to spend a considerable amount of time (i.e. 30 seconds) there in the 2NR to win. Voting issues need a link and an impact. 264 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Vega, Matt General – I consider debate to be primarily two things: an educational activity and a game. I do not think that debate is about the search for Truth or that my position as a judge is always to vote for the “right” argument. I find it highly unlikely that Truth will be fully encountered in a 2 hour debate. I think that debate is an analytical activity focused on the plan as an example of the resolution. My position as a judge is to evaluate the arguments in the round with as little intervention as possible. My many personal preferences for debate are an important lens as to how I will view different arguments…some specifics to follow. Counterplans/Theory- I consider myself to lean slightly toward the negative on counterplan theory. PICs, Dispositionality, and Consultation CPs are just not that damaging to affirmative fairness. That does not mean that I haven’t voted on each of those (and some several times) if the affirmative wins the argument. Conditionality is not as fair, but I still think that I probably lean neg. (Side note—Agent Counterplans, alternate actor counterplans, and consultation counterplans are not PICS. Some of the reasons that they might be unfair are similar to PICs, but you should read the correct block—if you run PICs bad against an alternate agent counterplan, I will probably look at you funny, and I probably won’t vote for it.) I hate theory blocks going back and forth without answering the other teams arguments and without comparison of impacts. I like theory to be debated like a disadvantage. I don’t care how much “offense” you are reading if there is not a unique link to the impact. Negatives do not have to win a turn, or an offensive reason the counterplan is legitimate, they just have to win that the counterplan is a fair/educational strategy. Permutations do not have to win a net benefit. If the impacts are a tie between the counterplan and the plan, I vote aff. I will talk more about disadvantages/net benefits later, but do not bank your 2NR on “CP solves, and there is at least a .0001 risk of the disad.” There is probably that much risk of anything happening. You should win a discernable net benefit, or I will vote affirmative. The recent infatuation of affirmatives to legitimize their permutation to do the opposite of the plan with “textual competition” is not at all persuasive. Functional competition is really the only measure of mutual exclusivity. I generally dislike a round with several independent voting issues. If you want me to vote on it, it should have more of a warrant than “fairness and ground.” However, I do think that some strategies are so unfair that they can only be countered by voting issues (Topicality is not one of them). Critical Arguments - I might have run a kritik 10 times while I debated, and I think that we went for one twice. Do not assume that I have read the books that you are reading from, because I can almost guarantee that I have not. I am not as familiar with the arguments as other judges, but if the arguments make sense, I have no problem with them. I am much more likely to vote for a kritik that links to the plan action and purports to have impacts in the world of the plan, be that a solvency turn or another impact. I am far less compelled by language-critical arguments like “threat construction” run on disads. I think that the best way to use these arguments is to question the likelihood of the impact. Similarly, I think that use of inadvertent gender-specific language is rarely a reason to vote for the other team. It is a good argument to discredit a specific piece of evidence. Of course, purposeful exclusionary language will not be tolerated. As for critical arguments in general, I have voted on them too many times to count, so if that is your argument or if that is what you think is your best chance in a specific round, then you should probably go for it. Critical/Non-Conventional Affs – I think that affirmatives should defend a plan as an example of the resolution. I don’t find the argument that the resolution is just a gateway to whatever you want to discuss as a compelling argument. Therefore Ironic Affs or Counterfactuals are probably not great choices. I find them to be unpredictable and unfair even if the affirmative gains some exterior benefit from talking about the topic. I am, however, fine with a different styles or methods of justifying the plan. And, as always, if the arguments in the round play out differently, I have voted for a variety of very non-conventional affirmatives. Topicality – Topicality almost always boils down to ground. The 1NC should explain clearly what ground they are losing and why that ground is important. I think that 15 second shells are strategic, but rarely complete enough to vote on. If the block further explains the argument, the 1AR will have substantial leeway. That said, affs better answer the argument. If you think that it is a “time-suck” then answer it like-wise with only the necessary arguments. I think that “jurisdiction” also relies almost entirely on ground. Chances of winning on an RVI or on a cheap-shot line in a topicality are about .00001, and you read earlier what I think of those odds. 265 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Vermitsky, John Hello everyone, It's been almost a year since I've gotten a chance to see many of you in the community with the exception of those that I saw at the earlybird. Ok so my judging philosophy I debated at the University of Rochester for the last three years. (With my wonderful partner Christy Webster!) In that time I ran a variety of arguments and as a result am willing to listen to anything. That being said I have not had many rounds on this topic with the exception of a few practice rounds I was fortunate enough to judge at wake. This doesnt mean that I dont understand your positions, (especially if they have appeared on past topics) it just means you have to tell me what the acronym you are using is the first time you use it and explain any issue that is specific to the topic that I may not know. Ok now for the args specifically Critical arguments- I love these arguments in fact these are the arguments we ran the most. That being said I will not just pull the trigger just b/c you say discourse comes first or their nuclear war scenario doesnt matter b/c only our words are real. These are arguments that can be made and won in front of me however if you are going to run a kritik you need to have an alternative you need to have a link and you need to defend against the permutations and case outweighs arguments. If you do that and give me a framework in which i can vote for you I will do so. Let me stress that if you can do all these things there is no kritik I wont vote for no matter how obscure or "out there it seems" Disads- Disads can be sweet and a real pain in the ass for critical debators. If you win the disad and its got impacts bigger then the aff i will quickly vote for it again AS LONG AS YOU PUT ME IN THE RIGHT FRAMEWORK! That means cover your ass against critical advantages and win your uniqueness. Case take outs help too Counterplans Run em if you got em. I'm not sure what I think of pic's. Usually I think they are fine but if they contain another aspect of abuse as well you probably want to cover your theoretical ass. Conditional cp's have to be well defended but I think dispo is normally ok. Its a good idea to have a net benefit to the cp that's not turned. Theory and T Just go a little slower here then on the other things. That doesnt mean you have to slow down to conversational just give me a sec of pentime when you are spewing through your blocks. I will vote on T, Aspec, I,spec or any good spec arg if you prove the abuse or potential abuse. I dont 266 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet think there is much of a dif. b/w abuse and potential abuse but again you can persuade me otherwise. I will definately consider a kritik of T but it's gonna be an uphill battle. A few random things I love humor, You can curse in front of me all you want, but DO NOT berate the other team (unless they are coached by will baker and joe patrice in which case its probably funny and true)seriously though be nice to each other and have fun. OH yeah and if you think im wrong after a round please argue with me just dont be a jerk about it and you can say whatever you want to me. I tend to be a bit flowcentric (so watch the flow) unless thats not your deal and then just tell me why it isn't and I might believe you. 267 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Verney, Danielle Background: Debated for 3 years at Catholic University. Worked with Liberty during law school. This is my first year as DOD at the Naval Academy General: Speed is fine. You don’t have to be nice to each other but at the very least don’t be rude. If you make me laugh I will love you. Debaters should RESOLVE ARGUMENTS by the end of the debate and make impact comparisons. Procedurals: The “specs” are tough to win in front of me—a.k.a. Aspec, Ospec, Ispec; I’ll be more likely to vote aff (just being honest). If you ask specific question’s in CX and show specific ground loss within the round I’ll be more open to the neg’s arguments. T is a voter, and again I’ll be likely to vote on it if the affirmatives interpretation deviates from a superior interpretation of the resolution which is made obvious by in-round abuse. T is not a reverse voter. Theory: Conditionality/PICs seem ok to me in general but I’ll defer to your arguments within the round. Policy: I’m most familiar with this form of debate although I have some experience with criticisms as well. I prefer a good politics debate to a theory throwdown any day of the week. Please make evidence comparisons as opposed to just reading cards at each other and make impact comparisons as well. Kritiks: Teams need to clearly articulate the links and implications to their criticisms. I’m not sure why Kritik’s get “special argumentative powers” as opposed to being considered just another fiat-level argument. Not that I won’t evaluate pre-fiat, discursive implications to criticisms but I lean more towards evaluating them in a fiat framework. I may not understand all of your philosophical jargon so make sure I understand it or just don’t use jargon. Performance: For me debate is about making arguments. I don’t see why the performance form of making an argument is any better than any other type of argument made in debate. If I don’t understand how your performance MAKES an argument then I can’t evaluate it. If you’re going to run a performance argument in front of me and you want to win you should 1) make sure I understand the argument you’re making and 2) answer the arguments of your opponent because I won’t evaluate your performance first just because it’s a performance. 268 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Waldinger, Patrick Boston College General Comments: Debate how you want to in front of me but I prefer to hear fast, technical, policy debate I try not to intervene. I like to stick to my flow but I find myself reading a lot of cards - so they better be good. Debate used to be fun. Do we have to sacrifice the integrity of arguments for the sake of winning? Plan: You should read one. Oh, and it should be relevant to the topic. Performance: I think it’s a performance to do fast, technical debate. Not everyone can read fast and do line-by-line debate. Your poem may be unique but so is fast, technical debate. I don’t have a problem with alternative forms of evidence, but they are not an independent reason why you should win. Also, if you don’t like debate, quit. My noncompetitive purpose is to make sure West Georgia loses. T: Whatever. Don’t love it, don’t hate it. I think T debates on this year’s topic are pretty interesting. I’m a big fan of having to talk about the topic. There is a reason why we have one. Aspec: Ask in cross-ex. Affirmatives should probably specify for the purposes of disad ground. For counterplans, not so much. Obviously I know why you think this is wrong. You can win it but don’t give me the – “I couldn’t run my Executive Order CP” bullshit. Spare me. Ospec: This is one of the worst arguments in debate. Worse than most Ks even. I love the politics DA but don’t whine about them overspecifying. Write a DA to their agent – odds are they are not ready to defend it. Also, it cuts both ways – if they aff can’t defend that their agent can do their plan I’m likely to vote for the neg out of principle. Disads: I am definitely a fan - the more the merrier. Good evidence is a plus. I absolutely love the politics disad. Counterplans: I like counterplans but I’m getting sick of using them as a crutch. It’s fucking annoying. Almost every debate since the coast I have heard either States/Lopez CP, Executive Order or Consult. How about you debate the topic people? Spare me your shit. These counterplans are getting on judges nerves and you are warned. Need a test – here’s one. Ask yourself if it’s a stupid agent/process counterplan to avoid doing work or a clever counterplan that’s part of an ingenious strategy that you have obviously thought about before the debate. Warning: your counterplan better be competitive and/or you better be persuasive on why I should view it as such. I do not like consultation and conditioning counterplans. They are cheating and a good permutation can cause trouble for you. Kritiks: I have voted for stupid K shit before and I will probably do it again. My lack of knowledge about the K may be a liability for you. I don’t necessarily dislike the K, especially if it engages with the topic. Talking about framework issues/my role as a judge is really important when it comes to debating and answering the K. This will help you and me at the end of the debate. Specific links are a plus. K affs: One question you should ask yourself: Does my K aff have to do with the topic? If the answer is “No.” then I am not likely to judge you anyways and you should probably keep it that way. I have no problem with K affs who defend their plan and engage with the topic. In fact, I think some are genuinely insightful and open up new areas of the topic (e.g., Dartmouth BrMa’s mass transit aff). If you aren’t talking about the topic then spare me. Run it on the neg. Theory: Go for it if you want to be lame. Don’t have to win offense to defend against a theory attack but it wouldn’t hurt. Speaker points: To be honest I don’t really have a real good method for determining them. I think the lowest I have given is a 26.5 and the highest I have given is a 29.5. The ones who get the better speaker points are the ones who 269 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet make smart arguments and engage in fast, technical debate (notice that is purposely did not put policy here, but doing policy debate isn’t going to hurt…). Having a good, smart strategy will definitely boost your speaker points. Being daring, e.g., straight turning a counterplan when they say you can, will be rewarded. Being funny is also a plus. Cross-ex is important to me in regards to speaker points. I will try to be fair and consistent. 270 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Walters, Heather General framework issues: I like debate because it is a research based, competitive, intellectual game. I generally prefer that the affirmative side advocate a plan and generally believe that they should be responsible for the consequences of the plan. Be specific and thorough in the writing of the plan / counterplan / and permutation. I am open to and I have voted on “plan-flaw” type arguments when teams are lazy in writing these texts and it comes back to haunt them in the debate. Critical Arguments: I find myself becoming more and more open to these types of arguments. I have both researched and voted for critical arguments on the topic. Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history. Topicality: I haven’t heard many T debates this year. It is a voting issue. Affirmatives should be topical. I generally don’t think the resolution is just a gateway for your political project. Instead, the resolution exists to provide fair ground to both sides and affirmatives should not be able to take anti-topical action in the plan and should take topical action. Counterplans: I believe that I lean negative on most counterplan theory issues. I would generally think that it is ok for a counterplan to be dispositional/conditional/plan inclusive. Affirmatives should write out permutations and be specific about what they include (don’t just always say “do both”—unless you truly mean it and its possible). I find that most of these debates come down to technical issues/how it is debated in the round, so my predispositions are not usually relevant. A counterplan must have a discernable net benefit in order for me vote for it. Other issues: As with most judges, the last two rebuttals are key. I generally think it is good to have some sort of overview that indicates what issues you are expecting me to vote on at the end of the round. Please do more than just extend a bunch of cites in the last rebuttal. Use cites, of course, but also explain what that evidence is saying and why it is still important in the debate. The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and use appropriate humor. If you have any specific questions, please ask. 271 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Warner, Ede I don't flow. Why? Because in 2000, I changed the mission of the University of Louisville Debate Society to make our resources more accessible to underrepresented populations, specifically African American youth. My decision to not flow came following the reality that my debaters resist what bill shanahan calls "flo-go-centrism" as well as the reality that I can better coach my debaters by creating debate environments closer to theirs. Finally, I want to politically show solidarity with our program. Implications: There is a hierarchial thought process that probably should implicate your decision-making: 1) The first step is to slow down. I make no claims that I can comprehend the most prominent forms of CEDA/NDT debate. I'm a very average guy with very average intellect. You are probably smarter than I and assuredly more wellread. Most public speaking text says the average mind will generally comprehend two or three major arguments in a speech. 2) Think about persuasion. People listening to speeches like to be persuaded. Creativity interwoven with tight arg's will always be rewarded. I want to be moved by logical and credible argument. 3) Not flowing does not mean unskilled. I have twenty years of debate training, so I probably know something. I used to call myself a policy-maker, although stayin' real is probably a more accurate starting point now. I will listen to the debate in front of me, but offer my starting points to help you better leverage your arguments and make decisions about what arg's have a more effective chance. But at the end of the day, I will vote on the best reasons given to justify a claim. 272 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Watson, Hays Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University. I’ve judged around 20 rounds on this year’s topic thus far. Topicality—I think it’s a voting issue. I think Affirmative’s should be topical. Having and defending a plan seems inextricably linked to being topical, in my mind. I would prefer that teams NOT just read the resolution, but rather defend a specific and particular topical action. Teams will be hard pressed to persuade me that topicality is “genocidal,” “violent,” etc. Whether topicality excludes particular perspectives or personal experiences is debatable in my mind, but I would err on the side of the resolution providing enough “space” for even alternative approaches of debate to exist and flourish. I wouldn’t mind hearing someone have a high-tech defense of why ASPEC is necessary on this topic in particular… Disads—I like ‘em. Case-specific, area-specific, mechanism-specific are probably more persuasive to me than your standard “pressure hurts US/Sino relations” disad. I treat the direction of the link equally, if not more, important that whoever controls uniqueness. This is especially the case for the politics disad. And I still like the politics disad, despite its increasingly bad rap… Counterplans—I like ‘em too. I will tend to reward case-specific or area-specific counterplans over agent or consultation counterplans, but I wouldn’t mind hearing a little non-delegation or Lopez every now and then . I tend to err Negative on theory, but my level of tolerance obviously varies according to the theory arguments involved. For example, conditionally and PICS (especially high-tech, small yet effective net-benefit based) can easily be defended in front of me, while multi-actor, international fiat might be a little more difficult to defend. I don’t necessarily think that Negative’s need “offensive” justifications for a theory argument to be legitimate in my mind, but it helps. Critical args—Not my cup ‘o tea. Mainly because it’s not my expertise, its not my preference in terms of research, and I’m honestly too stupid and impatient to read and re-read the literature to gain a grasp of Derrida, Zizek, Badiou, etc. and how their philosophy relates to US policy towards China. I am willing to listen to arguments by the Affirmative about the desirability of Aff choice regarding frameworks for debate. I am also willing to listen to arguments that such desirability is, well, undesirable. I will say, with confidence, that I don’t believe that links by omission are legitimate forms of critical argumentation. I also feel very uncomfortable in debates where I’m “forced” to uphold or reject frameworks based on personal politics—I simply don’t feel that people should win or lose debates due to their lived experiences, race/ethnicity, gender, etc. This feeling also is applicable to the above topicality comments. Bottom line, if you run a critical argument with me and the back and you lose, then James Herndon’s comments that I can’t spell the letter “K” probably explains why I came to such a decision. I like humor. I like smart and aggresive cross examinations. I prefer slower, persuasive readings of 1ac’s than 1ac’s that attempt to read 57 cards. I think you should slow down when reading topicality blocks. These “little” preferences will help your speaker points. 273 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Webster, Christy MICRO ISSUES: Fiat: I don't think there is a distinction between "pre and post" fiat, or whatever those terms means. I think that these 2 "worlds" inherently interact and it is impossible to extricate one from the other. What does this mean when debating in front of me? Impact and framework analysis becomes very important. I reward debaters who do it. It is hard to win if you don't Topicality: It's all 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 discerning T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well. Please, by all means, have an interp that you meet and that you can prove is more NB than the neg's. If you can do that, then you will probably have no problem running your "no-plan polka-dancing aff"in front of me. Oh.... A,I,E,O SPEC are all ok with me. Please don't half ass these args if u intend on going for them. Theory: Love good technically proficient theory debates! DO NOT just spew down non-responsive blocks and expect me to do the work for you. Working in multiple levels of abuse (i.e. conditional implementation pic's are bad) makes me giddy and usually serves to frame better, more in depth theory debates. Kritiks: A kritik does not always require an alternative. That being said, sometimes it is good to have one. I believe that most good critical debates that center around a "position" with an alternative come down to offense (disads) to the permutation vs. offense against the "solvability" of that alternative. It's vital to garner some offense against the links that the permutation doesn't solve for and for the negative to implicate those links as disads to the permutation. Disads: They kewl C/P'S: They kewl as well BTW I am not oppose to voting on fun args like Dedev, Malthus, Spark, Space You get the drill. 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. Don't steal prep unless it is enough time for me to go and have another cigarette if I haven't already "quit" for the 8th time that week. I hate the term Performative Contradiction. Hey people lets call these what they are... double turns! Get over the hype and conceed out of one or do whatever you find to be the most strategic and offensive for you. I feel a certain burden to protect the 2NR from new and unpredictable 2AR extrapolations and cross applications. I flow c-x.... just an FYI. 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! 274 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Weigler, Jacob Theory I like good theory debate, don’t like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate. Topic Specific Args. I have now judged enough rounds to have a pretty good grounding in the topic, but I have not read the literature extensively. I find that the internals on economics positions (oil prices, market restructuring, etc.) are frequently a little simplistic and I would love to see a more sophisiticated explanation of how the plan (or CP) would operate in and effect the energy market. I don’t have any major dispositions towards particular args., but I do tend to like tight internal links (or conversely teams that point out the lack thereof). Evidence I like well-applied evidence. I don’t mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I’d rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So … make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently. Style Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, an acceptance of your opponents’ attempts to do so. I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being an ass. Misc. I’m a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I’ll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. Most importantly, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like “Even if” or “Regardless of if they win X” or “My impacts should always be preferred because” will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side, or making generic magnitude/timeframe/propensity claims and hoping it is enough to outweigh. Don’t be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh your arguments in comparison to theirs. 275 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Weiner, Jake I evaluate argumentation based upon what is presented in a debate. I think that link and uniqueness discussions are just as important as impact discussions, for the affirmative case as well as the disads. A good link and/or uniqueness evaluation in the rebuttals can be just as, if not more, effective as any impact assessment (for example, just reading a schell card or "zero-point of the holocaust" and assuming the debate is locked up on the impact level is kinda dicey with me, you need to go the extra step and evaluate the impact evidence in regards to the link). For theory I am open-minded to all arguments but believe that it is much more important for teams to trim down their offensive theory arguments by the later rebuttals than just presenting a string of pre-written and impossible to flow, one line theory arguments. Doing this risks lossing the cohesion of their theoretical greivences. This applies to almost all arguments whether policy or critical. 276 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Wenzlaff, Sue I enjoy debates with lots of clash and clear analysis on how to resolve issues. I am open to a variety of different types of arguments. It is important for debaters to resolve competing issues in the round and narrow the debate to the most vital issues as the debate progresses. Clear standards on how to evaluate issues and positions in the final rebuttals are vital to resolve a debate in your favor. Be sure to weigh and prioritize arguments and spend the greatest amount of time on the issues you perceive will win the round. Debaters need to evaluate competing evidence during the debate round and provide reasons why your evidence/argument is superior to your opponents. Tag lines are not arguments. I will look at evidence at the end of the debate when a rationale is provided for me to do so. Be selective and make persuasive appeals for why I should call for specific cards. Establish why your evidence is better than conflicting evidence presented by your opponents. T is a voting issue, but on this year’s narrow resolution, the arguments need to prove ground loss or an unfair debate and be very compelling. CP’s have excellent strategic value and texts for all CP’s and perms need to be written out to avoid confusion later in the debate. Counterplan theory debates are welcome— provide clear analysis to support your theoretical framework. Critiques have merit when accompanied by a framework or standard for evaluation. Implications for other arguments in the debate need to be established. Overall, I’m open to a variety of arguments and enjoy a debate with a lot of clash on issues that are clear. Feel free to ask me questions before the round on topic-related issues or anything not covered in my philosophy. 277 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Westerfield, Zach My philosophy is pretty straight forward. I'll pretty much listen to anything. I do my best to let the debaters do what they want. I'm not really into molding debate into the way it "should" be by having a philosophy that attempts to make a statement. That being said, there are some things that I can say to give you some insight into the way I see debate. First, I love a counterplan/disad debate just as much as a K debate. I like case debates, and case specific disads the best. Nothing is better than turning case. I'm not so much into performance aff's or critical affs, though I find myself voting for them all the time simply becasue the negative chooses not to engage the arguments these types of cases make. I don't think the K needs an alternative. The most ridiculous question I've heard all year is what is the status of K's alternative. The negative is suppossed to skew aff time allocation. I see it as their job. That being said, the only real argument I won't vote on are theory arguments regarding multiple worlds or multiple negative strategies. The chance of you winning a conditionality bad/dispositionality bad debate in front of me are slim to none. If you have questions, or have never debated in front of me, then ask questions before the round. Otherwise, you get what you get. 278 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Wiley, Liz Groves High School/ John Carroll University Rounds Judged on the high school topic: 20 Rounds Judged on the college topic: 20 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 China (college) or civil liberties (high school). 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 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. 279 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Wiese, Danielle Danielle Wiese, Florida State University Wake Forest Judge Philosophy Rounds on topic: About 12 Years Judging college debate: 9 A little history: I debated NDT debate in the mid 1990's-- was around for the very beginning of the CEDA/NDT merger. Coached college debate for a long time--most recently as a grad student at Iowa. I am now the director at Florida State. I am also an assitant professor in the College of Communication. I study the Internet and critical theory. Important for Wake: For those of you who have debated lots on the topic-- I don't have a lot of rounds behind me yet this year-- doesn't impact my judging much-- it may mean that you need to be clear and certain I understand distinctions in key ev/counterplan strats if it's a big policy debate. General: I believe that debate and the deliberative process are important. This process contributes to the betterment of the world by challenging established ideals and building coalitions. In regard to debate arguments: Policy v. critical debates: no preference. Love both. Topicality: It's a question of interpretation. Tend to think a reasonable interpretation is a good enough thing, but would definitely vote on "your reasonable interp. isn't as good as our interp"-you should know I don't think that "limits" or "education" or "ground" are necessarily good. Counterplans: See below on theory. People should use intrinsicness answers to beat back artificially competitive cps, but that's just my opinion. Dispo is usually ok with me (I have voted Aff once or twice, but seldom) Evidence: I don't enjoy being in a debate where I have to read all the cards because I couldn't understand you- but I like quality evidence oriented debates that require me to compare evidence on key questions (Thus, I will read ev at the end of the debate) Theory: I believe theory burdens are reciprocal. In other words, certain arguments legitimize other types of arguments from the other team (for example: PICS may legitimize intrinsicness perms etc...) All theory issues are debatable. I've been told I err neg on theory. I generally believe that if the affirmative picks their plan (or advocacy) then they should defend it. I don't think "education" is necessarily a normative good. Kritiks: I think it is important to challenge the way we interpret/represent/advocate our arguments. You need to defend the worldview that you advocate (which probably means that it's good to have an alternative, but not necessary) "Non-traditional" debate formats and arguments: I try to allow debaters to debate how a debate should be decided. This does not mean that I will always side one way or another on these questions. I do ask that students try to respect the campus, students, and public in the settings where we compete regardless of debate-affiliation or orientation. Otherwise, I like clear, concise, well-argued debates. Other questions, please feel free to ask. Good Luck. 280 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Witte, Erin Debaters should run arguments that they enjoy and feel comfortable debating. As a judge, I feel it is my responsibility to adjudicate the round as fairly as possible, independent of any personal preferences that I may have. That being said, I do have certain ideological predispositions about argumentation and style. While I work to prevent these opinions from influencing my decision, they function as my default paradigm in the event that the debaters fail to provide me with an alternative framework/way to evaluate the round. These preferences may also apply in situations where debaters fail to fully develop their arguments, and I am forced to intervene in order to make a decision. Please keep in mind that these are in no way set in stone. I will always, always, always evaluate the round the way that the debaters tell me to evaluate it. I believe that all debates should have a relationship to the resolution. What the resolution means and how we should position ourselves in relation to it, however, are open to debate. Affirmative teams have to be topical. What it means to affirm the resolution (including the necessity of a specific plan text), however, is also open to debate. When resolving theory debates I am compelled by the argument—“Reject the argument, not the team.” You will have to work very hard to convince me otherwise (even though it is possible). I think theory should be argued like a disad. You must provide a link and an impact. Absent any in-round implications/abuse, I am usually unwilling to determine the outcome of a round based on theoretical objections. The same is true for “T” debates. Fiat is not real. Unless you tell me otherwise, I do not think of myself as a policymaker. My ballot does not shape social policy, but I do think that it has the potential to make an impact in the round or in the debate community. I don’t feel that either team has a god-given right to particular arguments or the ability to constrain the argumentative choices of the other team. I flow. Speaker Points: I will reward debaters who make the round enjoyable for me to judge. This includes debaters who are funny and make smart arguments. Clarity is very important. (I can handle speed. It’s the incomprehensibility that results from your inability to handle speed that bothers me.) I will punish via speaker points debaters that are excessively rude and condescending or debaters that use sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. language. You start with a 27.5. I will add or subtract accordingly. Reading ev: I’d rather not. You should explain the specific warrants within your evidence during the debate round. I will do everything I can to resolve an issue in the debate without having to call for evidence after the debate. The occasional exception is scenarios where the merits of specific cards are debated and compared to other pieces of evidence. I debated for 4 years at Mercer University. This is my first year judging college debate, so my judging philosophy is still being formulated. If you have any questions, ask before the round. If you are Louisville-- I will “take it to the streets” and find a lay judge. 281 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Vegparian, Varant UT General Stuff: Given the way I debated, I tend to be much more ‘big picture oriented,’ meaning that I am much more likely to vote for you if you have done more impact-assessment than the other team. This means that even if you have conceded some line-by-line arguments, if your overall argument is more thoroughly discusses (by which I mean impacted), then I am more likely to discount whatever you’ve dropped in lieu of impact assessment. That said, however, I find that most teams shy away from doing this in favor of putting more ink on the flow – which is fine – but not ultimately where I think debates should be in the 2nr/2ar. I’ve found that when there is a general lack of big-picture debate, I tend to default to a more-technical approach to the debate, and will give high credence to conceded arguments that seem to reconstitute what the debate had been about Counterplans: I’d like to think I’m bi-curious with these: meaning that I really have no general theoretical predisposition either which way. I think that conditionally really isn’t that bad if you’ve only read a counterplan, but is a major turn-off with more than one. Theory seems to be best resolved by competing impact claims, meaning that if you have more offense either which way, I could care less about the status of the counterplan That said, I generally shy away from such debates, and would rather hear more substantive issues. Solvency deficits, well thought-out permutations, da’s to the counterplan, and add-ons sit with me a lot better than a theory debate. Disadvantadges: I think my level of priority here goes impact assessment, level of the link’s specificity, then uniqueness. Reading 20 3-line cards from lexis from the night before probably won’t do you much justice if the other team has a few specific link turns. I think this cuts both ways: so if they’re politics link is issue specific, and you’re rolling with winners win, you’re probably not going to fare so well with me. While I think that well-thought out and explained link/impact take-outs are good, I generally default to more offensive/carded arg’s. Generally, because I think that if you’re running a critical aff, and you’re ‘defensive’ arguments are described as reasons why you’re aff is a critique of the da’s, I’d lean towards the aff. Critiques: Maybe I’m a snob when it comes to stuff like this (which is kind of sad in its own right), but I think that I hold critical aff’s and critiques to a much higher standard than more ‘substantive’ debates. That said, my preference is to listen to these debates over other ones. That means that you should actually debate these arguments and not read 15 cards in the 2nc saying ‘aff=biopower.’ Negative: the debate starts and ends with the alternative. The more specifically tailored it is to the affirmative the better you are. Specific impact discussion means describing what biopower or obligation to the other means in the real-world – meaning – give examples of how this stuff plays out. I generally think the negative wins a risk of the link 9 times out of 10, so its all about whether the alternative solves and how big/well explained the impact is. Affirmative: I think that if you’re reading a critical aff, and its obvious you stole a couple of cards from one of your teams and threw them at the very end of the 1ac, you’ll be in a world of hurt if the negative can explain why those arguments contradict your aff. What I’m trying to say is that either you should construct an aff that goes pretty far to the left, or have very specific 282 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet evidence in support of your aff vis-à-vis whatever critical net-benefit you’re claiming. Here too, I think the debate is about what voting affirmative means (which I think of as the affirmativealternative) and what your impact is. Framework: I tend to think this is not only a ridiculous argument, but really quite stupid. My personal bias is heavily aff, but I’d vote on it. That bias, however, only exists when the affirmative has read and defended a plan: the affirmative shouldn’t have to defend the actuality of immediate federal action, but they have to win that they demand/ask for/make a 1-900 number call for the USFG to do a topical action. That should be about everything – don’t be a jerk, humor is good, and try to laugh at my jokes when I crack them. 283 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Zisman , Ruth Director of Debate Bard College I like organized, concise, engaged, responsive debates with a lot of clash. I like good cards, analytic arguments, and alternative forms of evidence. Most of all I like to see that you are thinking and not just reading and that you care about the arguments you are making. I think that debate is for the debaters and not for the judges, and so I never come into a round expecting or hoping that teams will adapt to my preferences, but that said, I do not believe in absolute “judge objectivity” and I do not deny that I have preferences, biases, and opinions that affect my decision making process. So I will try to outline some of my preferences, biases, and opinions here. 1. I will be open to whatever framework you present to me. I do not come into the debate with any particular framework in mind as the norm or standard in which I should evaluate the debate, and so I leave this open for the debaters to determine. If there is no discussion about framework at all and both teams argue within the same framework (whether a policy-making framework or a pre-fiat, discursive framework or whatever) I accept this framework as the means for evaluating the debate. If there is a debate about conflicting frameworks within the debate, then I will vote in the context of the framework of the team that wins the framework debate. 2. I am very K friendly, meaning I like to hear debates about critical theory, personal experience, and performance. However, having been a literature and philosophy major and a performative debater, I hold kritiks and performative arguments to the same if not higher standards than that to which I hold all other arguments: the link story and impacts must be clearly described and analyzed, and a clear and competitive alternative must be presented. 3. On specific negative arguments, there is nothing that I hate or wont vote for, but if you are going to go for topicality or another procedural, you better make it very clear why it is that you are being abused IN THE ROUND and why I should vote on that. Just throwing out the words “fairness” or “education” or “abuse” and then saying “oh yeah, and this is a voter” doesn’t mean anything to me unless you really explain what exactly is unfair, where the in round abuse is, and why it is a voting issue. 4. In terms of speed, I would prefer it if you read at a “reasonable speed” and by reasonable I don’t mean that you have to talk to me like I am stupid, but if you are wondering if 500 words a minute is “reasonable”, I am going to say probably not. That said, I feel that I am fairly competent at judging fast debates if both teams decide that this is the kind of debate they want to have in front of me, but in that case I just ask that you slow down when reading your tags, theory blocks, and also when reading dense, academic theory. 284 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet 5. I hate aggressive, angry, and obnoxious cross-ex. I also hate it when one partner is clearly dominating the other partner. Please be respectful of your partner and the other team when debating in front of me and in general. 6. Don’t take yourself too seriously, and please don’t forget that debate is supposed to be fun! 285 2005 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Judge Philosophy Booklet Zompetti, Joseph General things you should know -- I expect and reward civil, friendly debates. Rudeness will almost assuredly result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. This includes situations when debaters feel impelled to speak constantly for their partner during the cross-ex. I also dislike reading evidence at the end of a debate. My expectation is that if debaters do their jobs sufficiently in the round, then I shouldn’t have to read evidence. If I call for evidence, or if your arguments require me to read evidence, then you are tacitly asking me to intervene. Topicality -- I will vote for the team who offers the best interpretation for debate. This may include abuse arguments, but I’m more compelled by questions of limits. Other Theory Issues -- I’m not a big fan of knock-out, drawn-out theory debates, although I will vote on them. My animosity toward them is geared more toward how they’re executed, and less with their substance. More often than not, debaters make theory arguments at incomprehensible speeds, expect me to flow every word, and then don’t understand why I may not have a “we increase education” blip from the 1AR on my flow. If you go for theory in front of me, you should spend time on it, and go a little slower. Kritiks/Criticisms/Performances -- These arguments are fine. In general, I find myself voting against criticisms more than for them. Why? Because teams typically run them with other arguments so they receive scant attention in the constructives. By the time the 2NR and 2AR roll-around, I’m left with classic debate buzzwords about how “performative resistance is key” or how “their discourse justifies” without any argument construction. In short, K debates have become too truncated for me. I still vote for them on occasion, when a team devotes enough time and energy to the link and alternative levels so that the argument actually make sense. Critical Affirmatives – They're okay. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but I prefer every Aff to have a plan. It's okay if you use it as a starting point, criticize the SQ, or the like, but you need to defend a plan for there to be clash and for the Negative to have a meaningful debate. As a corollary, I think that Aff "fiat good" or "policy good" framework arguments, esp. in the 1AC, are dumb. Just because you're Aff and you get to speak first doesn't mean fiat and/or policy are good. Defend the framework, don't whine about it. Other Tips -- I dislike tag-line reiterations and underdeveloped arguments. I much rather prefer a high-tech execution of one or two key arguments. I also dislike it when 2AC’s simply extend 1AC evidence without explaining the warrants of the cards or without describing how the evidence answers the 1NC arguments. 286

Samuels, Phil. - Description

Related documents

Products

Support

Samuels, Phil. - Description

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib