TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
TOC JUDGE PHILOSOPHIES
Abelkop, Garrett ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Alderete, Tim.................................................................................................................................................. 5
Antonucci, Michael ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Bashaw, Nathan .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Batik, Mark ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Batterman, Bill ..............................................................................................................................................10
Bauschard, Stefan ..........................................................................................................................................15
Berggren, Brian .............................................................................................................................................17
Berthiaume, Maggie ......................................................................................................................................18
Blank, Thad ...................................................................................................................................................20
Bricker, Brett .................................................................................................................................................21
Brown, Chris .................................................................................................................................................22
Bubb, Nick.....................................................................................................................................................23
Burshteyn, Michael........................................................................................................................................25
Carver, Joseph ...............................................................................................................................................26
Cholera, Kuntal .............................................................................................................................................28
Chung, Seungwon .........................................................................................................................................29
Clark, Joshua .................................................................................................................................................30
Clark, Kathryn ...............................................................................................................................................32
Coburn Palo, Nick .........................................................................................................................................33
Culpepper, Brent ...........................................................................................................................................35
Elson, John ....................................................................................................................................................37
Evans, Kirk ....................................................................................................................................................38
Ewing, Jack ...................................................................................................................................................39
Farra, Adam ...................................................................................................................................................40
Forslund, Eric ................................................................................................................................................42
Gagnon, Julian ...............................................................................................................................................43
Gibson, Kirk ..................................................................................................................................................44
Gjerpen, Katie ...............................................................................................................................................45
Gordon, Malcolm ..........................................................................................................................................46
Gray, Tami.....................................................................................................................................................47
Greenstein, Michael .......................................................................................................................................48
Groves, Dylan ................................................................................................................................................49
Hall, Brad ......................................................................................................................................................50
Hamraie, Aimi ...............................................................................................................................................53
Harrigan, Casey .............................................................................................................................................55
Heaton, Sarah ................................................................................................................................................57
Heidt, David ..................................................................................................................................................58
Heidt, Jenny ...................................................................................................................................................60
Herndon, James .............................................................................................................................................61
Hill, Luke ......................................................................................................................................................62
Holladay, Kathy.............................................................................................................................................63
Holland, Erik .................................................................................................................................................64
Huston, David ................................................................................................................................................66
Iftimie, Alex ..................................................................................................................................................67
Jaswa, Rahul ..................................................................................................................................................68
Johnson, blake ...............................................................................................................................................70
Johnson, Brooks ............................................................................................................................................72
Jones, Mike ....................................................................................................................................................73
Jordan. Shunta ...............................................................................................................................................74
Joseph, James ................................................................................................................................................75
Kaczmarek, Sheryl ........................................................................................................................................77
Keenan, Dylan ...............................................................................................................................................78
Kernoff, Joshua .............................................................................................................................................79
Lai, Debbie ....................................................................................................................................................80
Lawson, John .................................................................................................................................................81
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lazarevic, Mima ............................................................................................................................................82
Lee, Ed ..........................................................................................................................................................83
Levkovitz, Roy ..............................................................................................................................................84
Lingel, Dan ....................................................................................................................................................86
Lundeen, Geoff ..............................................................................................................................................87
Mahoney, Tim ...............................................................................................................................................88
Manuel, Brian ................................................................................................................................................89
Mapes, Meggie ..............................................................................................................................................90
Marks, David .................................................................................................................................................91
Mast, John .....................................................................................................................................................92
Matheson, Calum...........................................................................................................................................93
McFarland, Tracy ..........................................................................................................................................95
Miller, Bruce .................................................................................................................................................97
Miller, Jeffrey ................................................................................................................................................98
Mitchell, Todd ...............................................................................................................................................99
Morales, Tristan...........................................................................................................................................101
Mulholland, Rob ..........................................................................................................................................102
Munksgaard, Jane ........................................................................................................................................103
Murray, Jason ..............................................................................................................................................105
Olsen, Kade .................................................................................................................................................107
Osborn, Martin ............................................................................................................................................108
Parkinson, Alex ...........................................................................................................................................109
Patterson, Chase ..........................................................................................................................................110
Paul, Jonathan ..............................................................................................................................................111
Peterson, Brian ............................................................................................................................................113
Peterson, Jason ............................................................................................................................................114
Peterson, Sheila ...........................................................................................................................................115
Petit, Louie ..................................................................................................................................................116
Phillips, Scott...............................................................................................................................................117
Polin, Jacob .................................................................................................................................................118
Quinn, Robbie .............................................................................................................................................119
Ramakrishnan, Varsha .................................................................................................................................120
Reed, JV ......................................................................................................................................................121
Rekhi, Jaipaul ..............................................................................................................................................122
Renzi, Stephen .............................................................................................................................................123
Repko, Will .................................................................................................................................................124
Rickard, Jason .............................................................................................................................................128
Roake, Rob ..................................................................................................................................................130
Rubaie, Brian ...............................................................................................................................................131
Sabino, Lauren.............................................................................................................................................133
Sanchez, Sara...............................................................................................................................................135
Schultz, James .............................................................................................................................................137
Serrano, Nicole ............................................................................................................................................138
Shackelford, Mike .......................................................................................................................................139
Shore, Sam...................................................................................................................................................140
Silber, Marissa .............................................................................................................................................141
Smith, Brian D. ............................................................................................................................................142
Smith, Darren ..............................................................................................................................................143
Smith, Geoff ................................................................................................................................................144
Strauss, Dave ...............................................................................................................................................145
Strickland, Helen .........................................................................................................................................147
Sykes, Jason.................................................................................................................................................148
Tallungan, Christina ....................................................................................................................................149
Tarloff, Elliot ...............................................................................................................................................151
Tate, Tara.....................................................................................................................................................153
Timmons, Aaron ..........................................................................................................................................155
Tribble, Nathan ............................................................................................................................................157
Turner, John.................................................................................................................................................158
Turoff, Corey ...............................................................................................................................................159
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Vint, Kyle ....................................................................................................................................................160
Voss, Jonathan .............................................................................................................................................161
Warden, John ...............................................................................................................................................163
Weil, Stephen ..............................................................................................................................................164
Whisenhunt, Toby .......................................................................................................................................166
Whitmore, Whit ...........................................................................................................................................168
Wilkerson, John ...........................................................................................................................................169
Yost, Michael ..............................................................................................................................................170
Zagorin, Edmund .........................................................................................................................................172
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Abelkop, Garrett
I debated for four years at Chattahoochee High School and have recently completed my third year of debate
at Michigan State University.
I do my best to resolve the central questions of the debate using the arguments that are supplied by both
teams. I try not to intervene and will stick to the flow as much as possible. I will read evidence after a
debate, but it is better when the warrants of specific cards and arguments are developed throughout the
round.
I have not judged many debates on this years high school topic and it may be necessary to make sure that I
understand the intricacies or distinctions that you think are important.
Topicality – I tend to lean affirmative on topicality in general. I find myself persuaded by developed
reasonability arguments, and I evaluate topicality debates based on the predictable ground available under
both sides’ interpretation of the resolution. This does not mean that I will not vote on topicality, rather, it
means that the negative should impact their limits/predictability/education claims and weigh them against
the reasonability claims of the affirmative.
Theory – I give the negative a lot of leeway on most theory questions (like conditionality or PICs), but I
can see myself voting on theory if it is adequately developed and there are warranted reasons why a
particular theoretical objection warrants rejecting the other team. Even if a theory argument is dropped, the
burden of proof is on the team going for theory – not the other way around. For example, dropping
'multiple perms are illegitimate - voting issue' in the 1AR does not mean the negative automatically wins;
these cheap shots are silly and I think it is pedagogically unsound for the debate to be decided on them.
Kritiks – Coming from Chattahoochee and MSU, I tend to judge debates through a policy making
paradigm. I am willing to evaluate the debate through a different framework – it is a debate to be had.
Given that, I am probably not the best judge for the K, however, I have become increasingly open to critical
arguments. It is important for the negative to contextualize their link and impact arguments to the
affirmative and to explain how the alternative is a sufficient remedy.
Performance-esque Arguments - I am not the right judge for teams that evade the mandates of the
resolution and instead want the debate to center around their performative strategy of resistance or
criticism. While I will attempt to judge the debate independent of my personal ideology, I have yet to be
persuaded by this form of argumentation.
Counterplans and Disads – I evaluate these debates through an assessment of risk.
Warning – If debaters find it necessary to cheat by clipping cards I will vote against them and/or dock their
speaker points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Alderete, Tim
Time before a round is Limited - you usually can't read the Whole Philosophy -the first part is the Short
Version, the second part is if you have time to read it all.
First Part - Short / Pre Round Version
-I haven't often voted on "the Theory"
-I often vote for critical neg arguments And critical aff arguments
-You almost Always have to have a definition for your interpretation
-Impact Calculus is not a substitute for Line By Line debating.
-I will try to flow almost any intelligible speed or argument.
-I don't think that an overview is a substitute for covering on the line by line
-I am easier to convince than most that probability outweighs size
-I am easier to convince than most that there is No link / No solvency
-I am tired of people who strategically refuse to engage their opponents' substance.
Second Part - Longer Version
I don't think that many people describe accurately how they judge. This is how I think I judge, but it is
always better to ask Other people how I judge - they may have more accurate information.
I will give you very little leeway after the round, in the CX, in your demands of the other team for
evidence, etc if you won't SIT DOWN AND FLOW. It is not the other teams job to recreate their speech,
during their prep or during a speech, for you because you were wandering up to the 2AC every 10 seconds
to pick up the latest piece of evidence that they read. And if you disrupt their speech, or my ability to hear
their speech, with your wandering, I will be PARTICULARLY attentive to how Flowing would have
improved your points and ability to win.
-I'm not a close friend of The Theory. Proliferating "Theory" voters and cheap shots are rarely winners for
me. To win one, you need to cut down the number and explain why I should vote against the team rather
than the argument. "Voter for Fairness and Education" is five words and is rarely sufficient for me to reject
a team. Less time, fewer issues, slower, are your best options. Any position that depends upon an
interpretation of the Colon is FUBAR.
-Topicality. I have voted on End Strength Topicality more than any other violation this year (or its
budgetary support cousin.) I have voted against the Draft on End Strength. I have voted on Subsets against
Coast Guard, but not against Army End Strength - I don't know where the line is between them. I haven't
voted on Mandatory Service since October. It is difficult to convince me that Topicality is not a voting
issue. Reasonability should be a way to compare interpretations, not a substitute for it. I rarely vote on
interpretations that don't have evidence to support them.
-It is Very Difficult to defeat an argument in front of me when your only answer to it is "we outweigh" or
"we subsume" - Impact calculus is an important tie breaker, but it is now used far too often as the ONLY
answer to a disad or a case. The best way to outweigh a disad is to Respond to the Link, Uniqueness and
Impact of that disad. The best way to outweigh case is to Beat Solvency or Harms. I feel that this is at odds
with the way most people are taught today, so I will illustrate by example.
In the 2NR, You extend your Politics Disad with an Economy impact. You spend two minutes on top
explaining why economic recession would occur more quickly than the case, why it is empirical that it
causes war, and why it would turn the case because, idk - recession deters service. Then you spend 2:50
answering the 2AC args on the Disad, with the remaining ten seconds on case saying "Politics Outweighs".
The 2AR spends, lets say, a minute on Impact Calculus, a minute extending the case and Its impacts, and
then three minutes attacking the disad. I feel that the Neg is in a Nearly Strategically Impossible position,
because in those 3 minutes, they only have to put a Dent in the disad, because the case is dropped. EVEN
IF THEY WIN THAT THE DISAD, IN THE ABSTRACT, OUTWEIGHS, to privilege dropping case and
"Outweighing" it would lead to Nanotech impacts with asserted links every round.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
-I often vote for Kritiks and Kritikal affs, expecially when they examine the Affirmatives' Specific
assumptions, stated or unstated. I think that framework debates that are resolved around substantive issues
are often better debates than Theoretical debates about framework. I have never once been convinced to
vote on "Affirmative/Negative choice" arguments. Whichever framework I adapt Will include voting for
one team at the end of the debate consistent with tournament expectations. I've read a lot of critical
literature, but there are times where you will be over my head. I will try in those circumstances. I am
dispirited by people whose strategic response to kritikal arguments is to refuse to engage the substance of
the argument. I've never understood why discussing methods of advocating policies is Not Central to
teaching policy making.
-Line By Line vs Overview - California debate focuses too heavily on overviews. A six minute overview
with "above, above, above" on the line by line is insufficient for me. I am old school - you have to Cover.
-I am easier to convince than most judges that there is No Solvency, or No Advantage, rather than "There is
always some risk." Similarly, I am easier to convince than most judges that there is No Link, or No
Uniqueness. Finally, I am easier to convince than most judges that the Credibility/Probability of an
advantage or disad is more important than its Impact Size. I also think that "No Link" or "We Meet" are
pretty "Offensive," - I'm mystified by critics or teams that dismiss these as "Defensive."
-I am intolerant of Intolerant language. I don't like sexist, heterosexist, racist, classist, ablist, sanist or ageist
arguments or rhetoric, or comments based on starvation imagery, or any intersections of these exclusions. I
often actively correct people politically.
-I won't argue after the round with coaches who have neither watched the round nor understand their
debaters' arguments.
-I am usually loud and long winded when explaining decisions - I like to think of it as Thorough and
Engaged; I am not trying to be mean, just loud. I do enjoy judging a lot, even if I appear intimidating.
In general, I will flow pretty much any intelligible speed. I will consider pretty much any intelligent
argument. I've pretty much given up trying to get people to let their partner's answer questions or to stand
up or to stop stealing prep - I don't like those things, but there are bigger issues to deal with.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Antonucci, Michael
I have very few absolute preferences in debate. The vast majority of my theoretical preferences are *weak
default settings,* which can be changed by analysis and successful argument resolution.
Some meta-questions, however, are not subject to dispute:
Speech times, the process of assigning speaker points, and the assignation of a single loss and a single win
cannot be debated.
Honesty is axiomatic. Therefore, if you fabricate evidence, or deliberately misrepresent the portion of
evidencethat you read, you will lose, regardless of arguments you might make to justify your behavior.
Similarly, a degree of respect for your opponents is axiomatic. I would not tolerate a team flipping over
their opponents' table or setting fire to evidence; I also would not tolerate categories of hate speech that
would make it emotionally impossible for a team to continue. Thus, for example, if a team were to
deliberately assail their female opponents with misogynistic language, I would strongly consider voting
against them even in the absence of relevant argumentation.
My major meta-evaluative standard is simply my ability to grasp an argument with a degree of certainty. I
need to fully get it to vote on it. I cannot, therefore, look a team in the face and tell them that I vote against
them on arguments that I don't understand. A few consequences flow from this standard. First, I tend to
reject unwarranted voters. Secondly, I hold kritik debates to a higher standard of explanation than many
other arguments. This is not because I lack sympathy for these arguments. Their meaning, however, is
contested, which introduces a degree of ambiguity. When a team says "impact" to politics, I will generally
understand their shorthand. "Alternative" to a kritik (or "permutation" to a counterplan) can mean several
different things. Debaters need to resolve that ambiguity if they wish to avoid intervention on my part.
I flow. Generally, I flow well. I flow imperfectly, however, like anyone else, and I don't apologize for
occasionally missing a warrant, subline of analysis, or cite.
The remaining preferences are fairly weak - I try to avoid interjecting them:
Topicality: I have a weak default setting that grammar trumps limits. I tend to prefer definitionally and/or
grammatically based standards. I generally don't see an objective way to evaluate topicality abuse in round;
instead, I prefer arguments over the scope of an interpretation. Certain forms of abuse might be intrinsic to
a given theoretical view, whereas other consequences of a given standard might be unjustified slippery
slope arguments. I view that as a debate over logic, however, not a debate over potential vs. actual
implications.
I have yet to be persuaded by a critique of topicality generally. I can't envision debate after a wholesale
rejection of topicality, however important a given political project. I am, however, very sympathetic to
debating topicality critically. If you can defend a particular approach to linguistics as the relevant axis in a
T debate, I'll be impressed.
I have very few biases on counterplan theory. I do, however, suffer from a lack of clarity over whether the
word "permutation" means "test of competition" or "something I can advocate in the 2AR." I generally
assume the former; if you intend to execute the latter, some 2AC clarification, if only in the tag
("permutation that we can advocate") may be in order.
I usually read some evidence, but I try to minimize this practice. I frequently prefer the team with the
weaker cards and the more compelling spin on that evidence. This is a difficult scale to balance. Generally,
your evidence must provide a warrant for your claim, but I'll give you a lot of leeway on extrapolation of
claims from those warrants if you're debating well. If I read evidence in the absence of any analysis by the
debaters, I'll superimpose standards such as warrants, author qualifications (if read), and other standards
categories of evidence evaulation (prescriptive/predictive vs. descriptive). I may differ from other judges,
however, by my willingness to discount power-wording. I do not think that the most virulent rhetoric
actually constitutes the best evidence. In a vacuum, I may be more persuaded by a card from a peerreviewed journal than a card from a conspiracy website - even though the conspiracy card doesn't have the
same set of maybes, althoughs, and other qualifications. This default setting, however, is weak indeed.
This is my first posted judge philosophy in 10 years of judging. Obviously, I am lazy. I will update and
improve this as questions occur to me.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Bashaw, Nathan
I am a debater for Michigan State, I debated at Little Rock Central in high school. I've judged around 25
rounds on this year's topic. This is my first year judging.
I guess the first thing I should say is that I reward debaters that make connections between arguments, and
complete arguments. I think that a complete argument consists of a claim, warrants for the claim, and the
implication of the argument. When I am evaluating a round I stick to what debaters tell me, and try to not
intervene as much as possible.
Topicality: Because I don't have a lot of experience on this topic you should explain clearly the
interpretation/counter-interp, and why that is best for debate. I honestly would rather not judge a T debate,
but don't let that effect your 2NR decision calculus too much if you think you are winning T. I tend to buy
reasonability arguments, so if you want to go for T make sure you are winning that competing
interpretations are good.
The K: I am minoring in philosophy, and ran the K a lot in high school, but I would consider myself a
policy debater now. I don't have a ton to say; i'll listen to it and evaluate it, but it is obviously helpful if you
are clear about what your argument is and why it matters you shouldn't be in too much trouble. I'm not a
fan of huge 2NC overviews, I think they are a waste of time and a good K debater will just answer the
arguments on the flow and insert the analysis/explanation where it is necessary.
Performance: If I don't understand your advocacy, I won't vote for it. I'm fine with performance as long as
you justify it.
Theory: I am not a huge fan of listening to huge theory debates, but obviously if the other team is being
legitimately sketchy there needs to be a check on that. If you want to go for theory I usually need an abuse
story of some sort, and it probably shouldn't just be potential abuse unless you are clearly winning
"potential abuse is a voter."
I like to hear good debates where debaters evaluate what it means if they win "x" argument in the rebuttals,
not just talk about how big their impacts are. "Even if" statements are helpful.
If you have any specific questions just ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Batik, Mark
I teach debate and assist coaching at Jesuit College Prep of Dallas. I previously assisted at Colleyville
Heritage.
I have judged about 70 competition debates on this topic and have been judging high school debate for 15
years.
Topicality--I err affirmative on topicality. You might be able to win on defense alone if the violation is
particularly bad. Negative violations should set fair and debatable limits on the topic rather than be the
most limiting interpretation. I do not think that competing interpretations is the only objective way to
evaluate topicality. If you go for topicality you need a fair interpretation that's good for debate.
Theory--your best 5 explained theory arguments are far preferred over a dump of answers that increasingly
I don't want to flow. I want you to do some comparison at the end of a debate to assess whois winning and
losing a theory debate. I am disposed to hating conditionality .
Kritiks--if you go for a kritik that requires a decision calculus outside the traditional policy making
framework (i.e. balancing lives or benefits) then you need to win your framework for evaluation. I do not
have a problem with frameworks offered by the affirmative or negative that exclude the other. This is all
debatable. I think it's very important for the negative to win their framework if there's even a chance the
case will outweigh because I am probably going to vote aff. I think that most kritiks without alternatives are
to be evaluated like disadvantages (and those are fine for me). If you need to win an alternative to
leverage the kritik against the affirmative, I believe the K is subject to permutations as would a counterplan.
Counterplans--can be topical, and plan inclusive (although I will listen to the debate why they shouldn't). I
am disposed to voting affirmative on permutations to counterplans that others might describe as cheating
(consult, delay, and veto, for example). I think a very specific and strategic counterplan is a better option
than a big old generic one.
Disadvantages are your best friend when negative. I tend to establish the direction of the uniqueness first to
establish the risk of the link/link turn. I do think a DA can be won on defense alone but the defense has to
be absolute or the defense has to be sufficient that that the affirmative still outweighs the DA.
The debate is your debate. Be nice and don't swear too much. I think I am harder on speaker points than
most.
30-haven't given one in years. It is so long that I actually cannot remember the person to whom I last gave
this mythical number to. I think it won't happen again because it seems that if you get a 30 you are perfect
and there's no such thing as a perfect debate.
29.5-best speaker I saw this year or the best speech (1AR, 2NR, for example) I saw all year.
29-excellent. I believe you should be one of the top 5 or top 10 speakers at the tournament.
28.5-very good
28-good
27.5-average
27-below average
26-5 and below-you probably need work on something major or were not a nice person in the debate
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Batterman, Bill
BACKGROUND:
Bill Batterman is the Director of Debate & Forensics at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. He has been involved in debate for twelve years and is in his eighth year as an active high
school coach/judge. He judges frequently on the Africa resolution at local, regional, and national
tournaments and is well versed in the topic literature. Bill can be reached via email at
batterman@muhs.edu.
CONSTRAINTS:
Marquette, Woodward, Cathedral Prep, Sheboygan North
POINTS OF EMPHASIS & SOME TOPIC THOUGHTS (UPDATED FOR THE 2008 POSTSEASON):
My thoughts about debate are constantly evolving. I coach debate full-time and my interactions with toplevel high school debaters, coaches, novice debaters, non-debate teachers, and school administrators are
always challenging me to rethink some of my assumptions about what we do and why we do it. There are a
few things that I want to emphasize this season that are hopefully helpful for those filling out preference
sheets or attempting to adapt.
1. Being negative is not hard – Anyone who claims to believe that is either lying or not paying attention.
Over the past five years, affirming the resolution has become increasingly difficult for a variety of reasons,
some complex and some simple. The overwhelming trend on the part of judges to "err negative" on
everything from counterplan theory to impact calculations to topicality has made it exceedingly difficult to
be affirmative – speaking first and last is not enough to make up for the negative's access to a diverse and
largely unpredictable arsenal of "theory," "policy," and "critical" positions.
As a result of my feelings about side bias, I am becoming exceedingly unimpressed by "tricky" negative
strategies that rely on avoiding the affirmative as much as possible – debaters that rely on this "strategy" are
lazy and should be made fun of, not emulated. If your idea of a negative strategy is to consult NATO or
critique western metaphysics, you need to do more work and challenge yourself to learn something new. I
will not intervene to reject these arguments out-of-hand, but I will be much more easily convinced that a
given negative position is theoretically illegitimate (consultation counterplans or plan-inclusive critique
alternatives) or outweighed by the specificity of the affirmative's harms (generic critiques and seveninternal-link disads).
2. Clash is my favorite part of debate – More than anything else, I enjoy debates that involve clear
distinctions between the affirmative and negative. I wish teams would impact turn more often, especially
against critiques (biopower, the state, etc.). I love it when negatives engage the affirmative's case, even if
only with defense; affirmatives that challenge negative disadvantage impacts are equally impressive.
Instead of racing to find a strategy that enables you to defend as little as possible, take a risk and defend
something big. Debaters that intelligently challenge the thesis of their opponents' vision of the debate are
the ones that I most admire and respect.
3. Research is my second favorite part of debate – In close debates, I will read all of the evidence extended
in the last two rebuttals and will critically evaluate both content and quality based on the framing done
within the debate. While I understand the position that many judges take when refusing to read evidence
("it's the debater's job to explain it!," they assert), I believe adamantly that rigorous evidentiary review is
necessary to maximize the educational value and productiveness of our game.
Fundamentally, debate should not just be about spin; it is important that students learn the importance of
supporting their arguments with credible evidence. If your evidence is two sentence fragments from a New
York Sun op-ed, it does not become "true" just because the other team "dropped" it. Unlike many judges, I
am often willing to excuse technical "drops" if the overall thesis of an argument was challenged elsewhere
in a speech. This doesn't mean that you can drop a disad; coverage is part of the game and it is important to
learn to allocate your time so as to maximize the force of your arguments, but don't rely on the "I know this
argument is terrible and our evidence doesn't even say this but you have to vote on it 'cause it
was cold conceded" strategy in the last rebuttals if you expect to win my ballot.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Tech is important, but so is truth.
4. Topic Thoughts – I have heard a lot of debates on the Africa resolution and it will be hard for me to
avoid filtering your arguments through my experiences judging previous rounds. The following thoughts
should hopefully help you better figure out how I approach the topic.
a. Topicality "Public Health" – I have judged quite a few topicality debates and have often felt
uncomfortable resolving them. The "broad vs. narrow" debate over how to most appropriately define
"public health" is a very interesting one, but for the most part debaters seem content to make traditional
ground arguments instead of isolating more creative, literature-based standards for preferring one
interpretation of "public health" over another. Mark Rothstein's definition of the term seems the most
persuasive to me, but I think this debate is interesting and worthwhile.
b. Topicality "SSA" – I can't envision voting negative because the plan specifies a country or other entity
within Sub-Saharan Africa rather than the region as a whole. This is a rather strong bias; you've been
warned.
c. The SSA K & "Topically-Designated Areas – I cringe when hearing the inelegant ways in which
affirmatives have attempted to avoid linking to the rhetorical criticism of the term "Sub-Saharan Africa,"
but this inelegance is justified by the odiousness of the critique. As with "SSA=All," I can't envision myself
voting negative because the plan acts toward "topically-designated areas." On the other hand, if the
affirmative specifies Sub-Saharan Africa, the PIC to exclude the term is somewhat devastating.
Fortunately, I haven't had to sit through many of these debates; they are stale, boring, and likely to result in
relatively low speaker points for those responsible for its initiation.
d. Solvency Advocates – One of the biggest problems I've had with this topic is the lack of solvency
advocates for the affirmative. Unfortunately, this has prompted many teams to read plans supported only
minimally (and in many cases not at all) by their solvency evidence. Perhaps I have a higher threshold for
what constitutes a credible solvency advocate, but I have found myself substantially reducing the risk
assigned to affirmative advantages when unable to locate evidentiary support for the necessity of plan
action. While this can hurt the affirmative, it can also be devastating for the negative – from my
perspective, counterplans with contrived texts that lack supporting literature are likely to solve little if any
of the case. If you can't produce a card that supports your plan or counterplan, you'll have a tough time
convincing me of a significant solvency claim.
e. Aid Now – It's tough to win uniqueness for a disadvantage given the scope and frequency with which aid
has been increased in the status quo. I take link uniqueness arguments very seriously – after watching
several decisions in which judges discarded these takeouts with assertions that "there's still a risk," it is
apparent that I take them more seriously than the average critic. Keep this in mind when dealing with
these arguments; if you are extending a disadvantage based on a "foreign assistance to Africa" link and the
affirmative reads evidence that foreign assistance to Africa has been dramatically increased, I am unlikely
to assign significant weight to the disadvantage.
f. Literature Familiarity – While I have done a lot of general reading, I am most familiar with the military
aspects of the topic. I am least familiar with the PEPFAR literature; I have a relatively thorough
understanding of this literature, but some of the specific process-oriented issues might require a bit more
explanation. As far as individual countries go, I am most familiar with Kenya, Djibouti,
Somalia/Somaliland, the Greater Horn in general, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and to a lesser extent Sierra
Leone.
Almost all of the judging philosophies that I read (and I read all of them) include some comment about how
"these are only my defaults" or "I'll vote on anything as long as you explain it well and have a reason," but
for me that's something of a cop-out. Of course "these are only my defaults" and "I'll vote on anything as
long as you explain it well and have a reason." But I care passionately about debate, and I have put a lot of
thought into how the activity should be taught and how our community ought to function. I am always
willing to revise my opinions based on my interactions with others, but I am not a "blank slate" who wants
to remove himself and his opinions from the debate. If you are a hard-working debater who challenges her/himself to clash with the opposition, I am confident you'll be satisfied with me in the back of the room.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
OVERVIEW:
I view myself as a critic of argument and view debate as a competitive academic game. I strive to make a
least-interventionist decision while rewarding practices that I find educational and deterring those I do not.
As a full-time debate teacher/coach, I am more likely to resolve that balance in favor of educational
concerns than I would have been earlier in my judging career. While I am not yet a curmudgeonly
interventionist, the transition to full-time teaching/coaching has certainly altered my perspective on the
activity and I am more sensitive to concerns about the long-term viability and educational value of high
school debate than some other judges you will encounter.
What does that mean? A quote from Tim O’Donnell’s judging philosophy may be helpful:
I firmly believe that debate is one of the last places on earth where free and unfettered discourse is
celebrated as an epistemological method. In my (now more mature/dogmatic) view, the
critical/activist turn in competitive policy debate is a direct threat to this discursive laboratory. And so, the
folks who say: “the ballot is a tool” are at least partially right. The ballot is a tool and I intend to use it to
promote my view of what constitutes “good” debate. If we start debating about only things that we actually
believe (i.e. that align with our sensibilities, attitudes, dispositions, convictions, and biases), the gig is up,
the game is over, and debate—as a wonderful sphere of free and unfettered discourse—will forever vanish
from this earth. At this point you might ask: “Tim, don’t you know that fiat is illusory!” My response,
“Yeah, so what and no kidding! You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.” I never thought that
the things that we talked about in debate had an impact beyond the discreet confines of a particular debate.
I do, however, believe that the debate methodology has real value. And for that methodology to
function properly, we need an agreed upon starting point. It is a simple fact that any social learning
activity presumes that participants come to some agreement –in advance – about what they are going to talk
about. The originating stasis point needs to be clear from the outset for both educational and competitive
reasons. I have yet to hear a persuasive rejoinder to this claim from those that think that commensurability
among the various approaches to debate is possible.
While I am perhaps more sympathetic to critical arguments than Professor O’Donnell, his vigorous defense
of “the debate methodology” is something with which I fanatically agree. If your approach to debate or the
arguments you choose to advance are at odds with the switch-sides model of contest debating, I am likely
to find it/them unpersuasive and will be sympathetic to the substantive and theoretical responses advanced
by your opponents.
With my “meta” conception of the activity established, there are three main things you should know:
1. My specific argument preferences are mostly unimportant (with a few caveats noted below). I
would much rather have debaters go for arguments they are confident in than arguments they think I will
like better. While most judges include this kind of statement in their philosophies, I think it is a fair
characterization of my voting record: I enjoy critical, left-wing strategies as well as gutsy, right-wing
impact turn strategies. If your arguments fulfill the burden of rejoinder and clash with your opponents’
claims, I am likely to be quite receptive to them. Debates that involve clear, meaningful disputes between
the two teams are awesome regardless of the genre or content of the arguments: a hegemony bad critique
versus a big hegemony affirmative is as desirable as a military readiness disadvantage against a critical
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affirmative. Switch-sides debate requires—and indeed thrives on—clash. If you
clash with your opponents’ arguments, I am an excellent judge for you. If you avoid clashing with your
opponents’ arguments or otherwise try to craft undebatable positions, I am a poor judge for you.
2. I place more emphasis on argument truthfulness and evidence quality than many other critics.
Put another way, just because you say it doesn’t make it true. While I am not naïve enough to believe that I
know what is “True,” I am naïve enough to believe that I can effectively determine the quality of
competing arguments using the critical thinking skills we teach in debate. Explanation of quality (qualified
and warranted) evidence always trumps superficial extensions of “more evidence” (by that I mean lots of
lower-quality cards). Debates about source credibility and evidence quality are fantastic and encouraged,
and I will use these debates to guide my reading of each teams’ evidence. After almost every debate, I will
read a lot of evidence – I consider the work your squad has done in preparation for a tournament to be
exceptionally important and will do my best to evaluate the product of your preparation in terms of its
quality and the degree to which it supports your arguments. As a result, I have found that teams who work
hard developing specific strategies and who read high-quality evidence tend to prefer me as a judge while
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
teams that read poor-quality evidence and rely on generic arguments do not. I have no problem with this.
3. As a direct result of my views on argument and evidence quality, probability tends to be much more
important than magnitude when assessing impact claims. I tend to find the debate community’s
obsession with extinction rather perverse and often anti-educational – you don’t need to find a ridiculous
piece of evidence (think “Rabid Tiger” or “Mead”) to make the impact to your position meaningful. In the
vast majority of debates, both teams would be better off spending more time comparing the probability of
their impacts than extending silly “extinction turns the case ‘cause if we’re dead, case doesn’t matter”
claims. Debaters who utilize intelligent risk assessment when comparing the terminal impacts to their
positions will be rewarded more than debaters who focus mostly on these terminal impacts without regard
to their probability.
Despite this, I try to resolve debates using the least intervention possible. If you implement your “vision” of
the debate in the 2NR or 2AR and your opponents do not, I will almost certainly prefer your arguments. If
both sides implement a vision or if neither side implements a vision, then the above caveats about
truthfulness become much more important.
BAD ARGUMENTS:
In the past, I have provided a lengthy issue-by-issue breakdown of my predispositions. The more I judge
and the more I coach, however, I have found that these specific diatribes we outline in our judging
philosophies are mostly useless when filling out preference sheets and coaching teams before rounds.
Instead, I have compiled a list of bad arguments that I despise to varying degrees. If one of these arguments
constitutes your “A strat,” you should probably find something else to say or pref me accordingly. While I
have voted on most all of these arguments and will probably continue to do so in the future, they are bad
arguments and I will do everything I can to avoid rewarding you for making them. There are other
arguments I think are bad, obviously… ask me if you’re not sure.
The bottom line is that debate should be hard and hard work should be rewarded; if your idea of doing
work is cutting some "Japan says yes" cards or writing some new specification blocks, please strike me.
Topicality—“should is the past tense of shall" (it’s not)
“Topicality is a reverse voting issue” (this might be the worst argument ever)
Counter-interpretation: Only our case is topical (false)
Topicality—“plan must assist all of Sub-Saharan Africa" (this makes absolutely no sense to me)
Cheap Shot Theory Arguments (I can’t define it, but I know it when I hear it)
Theory counter-interpretation: we only get to cheat in the specific way that we're cheating, solves your
offense (false)
All Words (they don't have the entire resolution in their plan text so they lose, judge)
Over-Specification (if the aff has no defense of their agent, use that to your advantage and stop whining)
Agent Specification (ask in cross-ex; literature is the litmus test)
XYZ Specification (country specification, for example, or funding specification… ridiculously dumb)
Plan-Contingent aka Cheating Counterplans (consultation, referendums, conditioning, etc.)
Process aka Cheating Counterplans (veto cheato, sunset provision, pocket passage, etc.)
Delay Counterplans (also cheating)
Wipeout (this isn’t cheating, but it shouldn’t be hard to answer; same goes for Spark, Caldwell, etc.)
Links of Omission (“the aff didn’t talk about X, so they should lose”… dumb)
Time Cube, Ashtar, Hyperspace, etc. (remember what I said about evidence quality?)
I will continue to add to this list over time. You can certainly go for one of these arguments in front of me,
and I might even vote for you, but your speaker points will not be very high (a perfectly-extended “should
is the past tense of shall” 2NR will receive 27 points). Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, but don’t
expect me to enjoy it.
SPEAKER POINTS:
I have put a lot of thought into the speaker points I give and have found judges’ philosophies that include
their point scales very helpful. I assign speaker points to reward good debating and to deter bad debating
while attempting to fairly measure each debaters’ performance during a given round against the rest of the
field at the tournament. Assigning speaker points isn’t easy—little things can make a big difference (being
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
a good debate citizen will help a lot). I have consciously tried to increase my scale slightly this season,
especially at the top end; I have awarded several 29s and have judged a handful of speakers in elimination
rounds to whom I would have awarded 29.5. Here is my basic scale:
30 – the best performance I am likely to hear in a given season. I don’t think I have given anyone a 30 in
five or six years and am frustrated by judges who give multiple 30s at each tournament.
29.5 – one of the best performances I will see during the season. Someone I feel should be in contention for
the top speaker award at the tournament.
29 – an excellent performance. Someone I feel should be in contention for a top-ten speaker award at the
tournament.
28.5 – a very good performance. Someone I feel should be in contention for a speaker award at the
tournament.
28 – a good performance. Someone who isn’t quite “there” yet but who demonstrates solid skills across the
board. A team that averages two 28s is one that I feel should be in contention to clear at the tournament.
27.5 – an average or slightly above-average performance. Someone who shows strong technical skills and
poor strategic vision or poor technical skills and strong strategic vision. A 27.5-28 is “average” on my point
scale.
27 – an average or slightly below-average performance. Someone who is competent for their division but
who needs to improve in order to be in contention for elimination rounds.
26-26.5 – a below-average performance. Someone who needs work in a lot of areas in order to be
competitive in their division. I tend to differentiate between 26 and 26.5 to reward debaters who are
showing promise in a specific area.
Below 26 – this is reserved for offensive debaters or debaters who are clearly in over their heads and who
don’t demonstrate much effort or desire to improve. I will use 25s and 25.5s to differentiate between
below-average varsity debaters and novice debaters competing in a varsity division.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Bauschard, Stefan
I. Theoretical dispositions
Conditionality/PICS. I have never voted on conditionality bad or PICS bad. I have, however, 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. I think (f) competition is more important than textual. 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.
Stupid independent voters. You need to really win a debate – I don’t flow these arguments.
Topicality. Generally, I think the aff can defend any reasonable and predictable interpretation of the topic
and if they fail to do so they lose. Artificial, non-definition-based interpretations of the topic are
stupid. I'm rather "old school" on T, though I must admit affirmatives fail to offer a definition and
explanation of "reasonability," often leaving the stand of "most limiting competing interpretation" to
dominate.
II. 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.
Wars & death. I think these things are worse than most other things that teams 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, but rarely is. 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....
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
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 (timeframe, probability, impact) won the debate. This held true regardless as to what side they were.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Berggren, Brian
USC (Damien High School)
Overview:
(1) Years of High School Judging Experience: 4
(2) Rounds judged on the topic: 40+
(3) I will weigh all arguments in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. However, in the words of Shawn Powers,
“the less clear that an argument and/or evidence is, the less likely I am to follow the precise logic or
intuitive leaps required to award said argument significant credibility.” Especially in rebuttals, the best way
to illustrate the strength and importance of your arguments is to explain the warrants provided in your
evidence.
Theory & Topicality:
(1) To win any theoretical arguments in front of me, you must be able to describe the ground you either
gain or lose, and why it’s preferable to the ground provided by the opposing team’s interpretation.
(2) I do not have a predisposition about whether a counterplan is conditional, dispositional or
unconditional. I would say that I have no significant predispositions for or against either side of these more
nuanced PIC arguments, but a general PICS bad debate is rarely a winning argument in front of me.
(3) In terms of “cheap shots,” I rarely think these arguments are sufficient to become independent voting
issues, but that doesn’t rule out situations in which these arguments are winnable. For example, if a team
completely mishandles an argument and you can prove why that argument is important to my decisionmaking, I will vote for you.
Counterplans & Disads:
(1) The most important thing is that the Negative must prove their Counterplan is competitive with the
Affirmative plan. With that being said, I will not reward a team that writes their plan text intentionally
vague in order to eliminate competition for a Counterplan. In those situations, I will give greater weight to
the Negative’s arguments about how the Affirmative plan will be implemented and why their Counterplan
is competitive
Critical Arguments:
(1) I am more well-read in the policy literature, but I will vote on critical arguments. In order for me to not
only understand these arguments, but to vote on these arguments, debaters must provide more explanations.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Berthiaume, Maggie
Lexington High School
Short Version: Read "the most important part(s)" and then do what you’re good at. I’m not overwhelmingly
predisposed for or against any argument and if you’re ready to go for something, you should do that.
The most important part(s):
(1) Please be nice. If you can’t be nice to others (the other team, your partner, me, random people who walk
in), please don’t prefer me. Ignore this and you will almost certainly not be pleased with your
speakerpoints. There is a fine line between competitive spirit (yay!) and being mean (boo!) – know it.
(2) -New for this year- I believe that debate is a place for free speech and expression. That said, I'm a high
school teacher and believe that debates in both high school and college should be something I could show
to my students (or their parents) with pride. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find
your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.
Long Version:
Note to the 1NC - Please label your offcase positions - it's more efficient for roadmaps and means I don't
have to think up a label while flowing. Thanks.
Speed - It all depends on what you're saying. A fast politics DA, CP and case debate? Love it. A fast
narrative about your life? It may sound strange, but I can certainly keep up. If you're unclear, I'm likely to
call something out. I also have an atrocious poker face - if I'm frustrated/annoyed/happy/amused, it will
almost certainly be obvious.
Topicality – A great T debate includes one or more pieces of evidence describing the interpretation and
why the aff doesn’t meet it, combined with arguments about how allowing the aff makes the topic
unmanageable. I think I often lean neg in T debates on the question of whether the interpretation is better
than the counter-interp, but often vote aff when 2NRs fail to impact the limits arguments. I think the neg
needs to win that the aff makes debate bad, not just that the neg interpretation is marginally better. Limits
are probably more important than ground (I mean really, who says “Racism bad” and sits down?).
Grammar is probably important for having a predictable topic, but other issues could outweigh in given
instances. If you’re going for a complex grammar argument, please remember that I have thought little
about grammar since high school – slow down or make sure it gets out in CX.
Theory - PICs are debatable but probably good. They are almost certainly good if the thing the neg
excludes is specified in the plan text. Dispositionality is debatable, but probably good. Conditionality may
be abusive to the aff but I need to be persuaded of an impact beyond sticking them with the CP. Teams
going for theory should assume the other team has made a “reject the argument not the team” argument in
order to explain their impacts. I think the purpose of theory is to check against things that make debate
impossible, not merely things that make debate harder – debate is fun because it’s hard. I think all negs
should make specific arguments about how the practice they have to defend (a) is institutionalized, and (b)
hasn’t made debate a horrible place.
Framework – While it is true that the team that wins the framework often wins the debate, it seems like too
often teams (especially policy affs against Ks) spend too much time putting up a fight against the
framework when they could just win the K. Framework is like T – it's a questions of whether one side or
the other makes it impossible to debate - depictions of in-round abuse from either team are particularly
persuasive to me.
Kritiks - Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff
makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make
specific links to the aff – the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff
evidence. If you’re filling out your strike sheet simply by scanning down to this question (in either
direction) you should probably not make me a 1 – I vote for and against Ks on a relatively equal basis. I
think I’ve voted slightly more neg, though generally due to lack of coherent response by the aff rather than
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
a philosophical predisposition to the neg arguments. You should not make “realism good” as an answer to a
K if your aff is not realist.
K Affs – K affs that grapple with the question of the resolution are definitely more legit to me than those
that do not. An aff with a defended plan and a critical advantage is almost certainly just fine – indeed, often
a good strategic choice. K affs that basically say nothing and then wait for the neg to say something so they
can say “we do that too” drive me nuts. See #2 above if you read a performance or similar argument that
tests the bounds of tastefulness.
For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost
always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why
the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly
true in close uniqueness and case debates.
Phrases I hate in debate:
- “make that argument and we’ll answer it” (and variations thereof)
- “justifies only our case is topical”
- “but then we couldn’t punish racist/sexist jokes”
Please have fun.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Blank, Thad
Affiliation: Missouri State and Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart
I tend to view debates in terms of offense versus defense. This dominates how I evaluate arguments,
including T and theory.
I think the judge should strive to fairly evaluate whatever arguments the debaters choose to make in the
round. However, it is disengenous not to recognize that we all have certain biases that color our views.
Here are some of my judging quirks, roughly in order of most strongly held to least:
1. An utterance must meet a certain threshold to be an argument. The line by line is a convention designed
to facilitate clash, not make it irrelevent. I.e. sometimes, even if you say something three times, and the
other team never answers it, it still doesn’t mean you win the debate, if that particular utterance makes no
sense, is irrelevent, is patently offensive, or is clearly answered on another sheet of paper.
2. Offense vs. defense is the way of judging arguments that makes the most sense to me. This might make
me different than many judges mostly on T: When all the conventional args for “reasonability” vs.
“competing interpretations” are stacked up, it looks like a crush for “competing interepretations” to me.
The aff is in trouble if they do not have offensive justification for their interpretation of the topic. Also, I do
not foresee the day when I vote on presumption.
3. I may have a relatively low standard for allowing cross-applications between arguments. When one team
makes an argument that clearly also answers something said by the other team, it seems uneducational to
claim that we should ignore the obvious because it wasn’t said in the right place, or wasn’t said twice in a
speech, especially if the other team still has at least one speech left in which to answer.
4. Permutations that test the competition of CPs and Ks are probably not voting issues. “Vote against the
argument, not the team” makes intuitive sense, and “you made a severance perm, VI” is not a winner unless
it is repeatedly dropped.
5. Extra-T is probably a voter. It seems true that the time the neg would have to invest to prove that part of
the plan should be severed makes it impossible to win another argument in the debate.
Other things that are perhaps relevant:
--I judge and cut cards on both the high school and college topics (more the former).
--I am not really a crusader for or against the K. I don’t read very much critical literature, so I am a less
literate judge in those debates. It usually seems to me the aff needs to make inroads against the alternative
to have a chance of winning. In framework debates, the aff needs to be sure to impact the argument. It is
hard to win this is a voting issue, thus it is important to explain how winning the framework argument
impacts the negative’s ability to access their alternative.
--C-X is important, and I try to pay attention and even write down answers to key questions. Very
occasionally, I get involved in a CX when one team is being evasive about something it really seems like
they should answer, or when some sort of basic misunderstanding is unnecessarily muddling the exchange.
Yes, I do want to be Dallas Perkins when I grow up.
--The trend in impact comparison has swung toward quantity at the sake of quality. It is time for the
pendulum to swing back toward parsimonious, quality impact comparison. So much of what is said is
useless because it lacks recognition of what arguments are actually being won or lost in a debate, is generic
(i.e. not truly comparative), repetitive, laughably untenable, unwarranted or unevidenced.
--Please properly and fully cite evidence. Cards that excerpt sections of text need this noted in speeches
(i.e. you have to say “it continues” out loud).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Bricker, Brett
ARGUMENT ISSUES:
I think the vast majority of debaters work hard, and I will do my best to work hard at making the correct
decision. The thing that I respect most as a debater is a judge who will do everything necessary to evaluate
all arguments fairly. That said, there are caveats - some overcomable, some not. I think arguments should
have a claim and a warrant (not overcomable). It's hard to be negative, I tend to believe PICs and
conditionality are OK, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I lean to the right in most of my argument
choice, and I would much rather see a politics and counterplan debate instead of a debate about zizek
(overcomable). Moreover, a dropped argument is a true argument, so you should answer things if you want
to win arguments. I believe the quality of evidence is important. 50 percent of debate should be won with
research done outside of the debate round.
TOPICALITY ISSUES:
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.
IN-ROUND DEMEANOR ISSUES:
I like debates to be pleasant experiences for competitors and audience alike. Do not be a jerk to your
opponent or your partner. I think debate should be fun. Humor is greatly appreciated. If a team is dishonest
in pre round disclosure I would be willing to make it a voting issue. (Harris, 2007).
By all means, ASK QUESTIONS.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Brown, Chris
General:
My motto in most debates is to do what you are more comfortable with and do it well. The usual applies,
extend the warrants, compare evidence, explain how your arguments interact with the other teams. Those
should be givens at the varsity level of debate. Regardless if anyone says anything about it in the round I
will protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments. Card clipping will be grounds for a loss, no matter if it is
me or the other team pointing it out. If you want me to call for evidence extend the cite in the last rebuttal,
otherwise I will not look at it or call for it and if you don’t underline/read the warrants of the card don’t
expect me to do the work for you.
Theory:
Don’t expect me to evaluate a theory debate in your favor if all you do is go as fast as you can, extend
taglines, and lack explanation. I am not a good judge to go for theory for in front of. However, it doesn’t
mean it is impossible, just that I’ve found most teams regardless of knowing how I like to see it debated,
refuse to take their time and do a good job. In this case, depth is better than breadth and your debates will
go a lot better in front of me if you explain why your few well developed arguments in a theory debate
answer the other team’s blippy tag-lines. Topicality specifically – I probably will never vote on T,
SSA=All. Other than that everything else is the same.
Critiques:
This is probably where I am most comfortable evaluating debates, only because my outside knowledge of
the topic is greatest here and has most to do with what I study. This means that if I think you are
misrepresenting an argument or someone’s philosophy, your credibility in my mind will go down and
possibly speaker points. It will be very hard for you to win on a poorly developed criticism so if you are not
willing to put in the time and effort explaining a critique in a round, chances are you should go for a
different argument in front of me. I like to see good debates, with minimal cards and maximum thinking
where the best cards are read first and the debaters develop the arguments, not the evidence they read
necessarily, the rest of the round.
Policy (DAs and CPs):
I love a good policy debate just as much as anyone else, especially a teched out PIC and good impact
analysis. I do a lot of policy work for my teams and love complicated politics and econ debates that involve
a lot of analysis. If you are going for a politics DA the link and internal link analysis ie, who’s vote in
congress counts, why the aff hurts chances of ‘x’ policy passing, should be developed and as detailed as
possible. Political Capital is finite (seidenfeld) link arguments are not persuasive, though may be necessary.
I like to see other teams point out inconsistencies in the link arguments for these debates and teams actually
looking at the other team’s evidence because a lot of times politics cards will not say what the team reading
them necessarily wants them to.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Bubb, Nick
I am diamond coach in the National Forensics League. I coached debate and forensics at James Madison
Memorial High School for six years and during that time I sent Wisconsin’s first representative to the
National Tournament of Champions in Lincoln-Douglas Debate in ten years. I coached Sheboygan North
High School for two years, winning a state championship in Lincoln Douglas Debate, and redeveloping
their policy debate team. Last summer at Marquette University Debate Institute, I lead their top policy
debate lab with Bill Batterman, Cheryl Stanga, and Brandon Sheats. I have taught Public Speaking at the
University of Wisconsin and have volunteered my time to help develop the parliamentary debate team
there. My academic studies are in public policy. I am a master’s candidate at La Follette School of Public
Affairs, graduating later this May. I have recently accepted a position as a Budget and Policy Analyst with
the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. (A joke I've been frequently making is that I am
a policymaker and that funding disads now seem more important.)
About me as a judge:
When evaluating policy debate rounds I primarily look for a story. That story can come from any kind of
argument; whether it’s a procedural or theory argument, counter plan, or kritik, it does not matter, so long
as you are explaining to me why the story is significant enough for me to vote for you. Defense is usually
not enough for me. I’d like to see debaters argue for something. I also find specificity with regards to all
forms of argumentation to be more persuasive than less nuanced analysis. Signposting and overviews, I
generally find extremely helpful, especially in the final rebuttals. This idea also deserves some stress:
“extending” cards is not sufficient, especially when your opponent has some response. Even if you are not
flowing through ink, you need to tell me why your analysis is correct in light of what the other side has
said. It is not enough for debaters to say “extend Zizek” and expect me to vote affirmative. I need to hear
the analysis especially in the final rebuttal why that extention matters at all. What I want debaters to do at
the end of the round is to be able to tell me what argument matters and why it matters. Analysis like "prefer
our evidence" or "because of this, you look to X arg first" is particularly persuasive to me. This also means
that it is especially important for debaters to collapse down, rather than to force me to sort out the round.
I try not to intervene at all, if possible, because I believe that the debate is really up to the debaters and that
I should adapt to the debate. That means you can go as fast as you like, tag-team during cross-x, run any
form of argument you’d like to run, and whatever else you’d like to do. I generally enjoy a fast debate, than
a slow debate (especially a slow debate that goes nowhere).
However, me adapting to the debate, isn’t possible in all situations. I do not have a significant amount of
experience completely flowing incredibly blippy responses and sloppy, unclear debating. So while I enjoy
speed, and encourage it, you need to be clear and articulate for me. For example, a very fast and poorly
articulated theory block or topicality violation is going to be hard for me to flow (and most likely vote for).
Arguments need to be especially clear on theory (and it wouldn’t hurt to slow down a bit on those debates),
taglines, and authors. (Evidence I’ll get later if I really need it). If I don’t completely understand you, give
full weight to a counter-interpretation, realize which card I’m going to apply to some other card of your
opponents or see how a 1ar response grants a 2ar answer to the 2nr, that’s you’re fault. Not mine. Debate is
still a communication activity, and you have to communicate with me, in order for the high level chess
game to begin and end.
Moreover, my experience is largely limited to coaching highly competitive national circuit LD, although as
of late I have spent a significant amount of time dealing with policy debate. This means a number of things:
first it does not mean that I love the kritik. In fact, my ideal negative strat is something like: T, CP, DA,
Case. Second: my coaching creditentials exceed my competitive credentials. What this should tell you, is
that my experience flowing is not fantastic. SO you need to be especially clear where you want me to flow
things. If I get lost, I will continue to flow, but not necessarily where you may want me to flow. I can get
lost between overviews and line-by-line if you don’t articulate when you jump and I can get lost when the
arguments are very similar. This sometimes becomes problematic for debaters who do a less than stellar job
in the final rebuttal, because they want me to extend/weigh something I cannot find. Hence, I echo again
the importance of being completely clear on where you are, where you are going, and where you want me
to put answers. That’s probably the most important thing to understand about me.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
I also have some argument hang-ups. I generally hate morally reprehensible arguments like: Malthus
good• and slavery good and will have a hard time voting for them. I will, of course, hear the argument, but
I think the threshold for answering such arguments is relatively low. Spark and wipeout should probably be
in this group too, but they’re not as bad.
There are also a few practices I generally frown upon and think are highly questionable: Lying to me in the
debate (saying something was dropped when it wasn’t or responded to when it wasn’t), Going new in the
two, and arguing with me after my oral critique (or having your coach do so). I generally provide an oral
critique, because I think it’s important to the immediate educational value of debate that competitors
understand what I thought in the debate and how I reached my decision.
I have also come to notice that I am a pretty bad kritik judge. Teams that specialize in the K would do well
to win the alternative and to win links to something specific about the plan. Linking to abstract things like
the aff offered a policy (less convincing) or the aff said something bad (better, and can be good depending
on what was said), are less desirable for me than a clear link to something the affirmative actually does.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Burshteyn, Michael
Affiliation = College Preparatory School
I always say two things when people ask me about my judging preferences. While they may sound cliche or
obvious, these are the only things that really matter to me in evaluating a debate.
1 - Clash. You are asking for me to intervene arbitrarily if you don't make comparative arguments. Reexplaining an argument in a later speech does not help me to decide why one argument is better than
another. You should extend arguments in a way that responds to what your opponents said, because unless
you are unclear, I probably heard you the first time.
2 - Clarity. My only real bias in debate is that I view it as a worthwhile and fun activity, so I try to evaluate
arguments on any issue fairly. No matter what argument you are going for, however, if I can't understand
you, then I cannot judge what you said. If over half the debates I judged weren't painfully unclear, then I
wouldn't make this comment.
The rest of this is basically tips on how I prefer to listen to XYZ type of debates. I try to actively subvert
my biases when judging, but I'm new to this whole thing, so you may want to know what I really think.
Topicality -I think that the resolution divides affirmative and negative ground, and topicality is important. There is a
debate to be had between a reasonably topical affirmative, and a standard of competing interpretations.
I think both arguments are winnable.
Critiques -Don't assume that I'm familiar with whatever K goo you read in the 1NC just because I've gone for kritiks
before. K debates are often the zero point because people haven't spent the time to read and think about
their evidence, and then explain it like a bad politics disad. Bad K debates are very frustrating to judge, and
increase the likelyhood that you will not like my decision. On the other hand, good K debates are very
interesting and I enjoy judging them. Difference between good and bad K
debates? Clash and Clarity.
Theory -I try not to intervene, but here's what I think anyway.
PICS - Good
Conditionality - Medium to Good
Dispositionality - Good
Condition Counterplans - Bad unless specific
Consult Counterplans - Medium
Framework - Gotta have a plan
My all time favorite thing in debate is a savage case turn + disad and/or specific counterplan throwdown. If
you've put in the work and are ready to roll, I'd love to be in the back of the room.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Carver, Joseph
Director of Debate
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart
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 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. I do enjoy deep competing interpretation debates and
suppose I have voted on topicality three to four times out of six this year. 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 well-defined 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
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
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 27-28.5 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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Cholera, Kuntal
Topicality
I default to a framework of competing interpretations, but it's possible to win reasonability. I prefer
arguments about limits over arguments about ground - there's ground under any interpretation, is it
predictable though? Teams should have sources for their interpretations that are grounded in predictable
literatute, i.e. a dictionary or a reliable contextual source. You should also slow down on these debates - not
that anyone will actually do so.
Critiques
I'm not very well read in this area, so err on the side of extra explanation. The discussion of framework is
important, and this goes beyond just fiat good/bad. Explain the impacts and how they operate within either
framework (I'm not really persuaded by the argument that what the aff says in the round has an effect on
the consequences of the plan).
DAs
Impact comparisons are important, as are discussions of how the impacts of the DA interact with the case.
CPs
I don't think the negative has to win that what they did was good, just that it was ok. Although absent
offensive arguments, it gets a little harder to win that what you did was even ok. I default Other
I try to be open minded, if you have any other questions, just ask
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Chung, Seungwon
(Wake Forest University/Cathedral Prep/Lakeland)
Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic): 1
Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic): 7
I debated in high school at Lexington High and have just finished my third year of debate for Wake Forest.
I will try to judge the debate the way you tell me to judge the debate. What follows are my dispositions
which can change if debaters tell me to.
Topicality – T is always a voting issue. It is never a reverse voter, genocidal, oppressive, racist or
outweighed by theory. You win the T debate by winning that your standards are comparatively better than
the other teams. It’s your job to weigh the standards. If you don’t I will do it for you and you will probably
not be happy. Topicality is generally a debate of competing interpretations, although I am readily persuaded
by the reasonability arguments.
Kritiks – I believe that at the minimum the aff should get to weigh the world of the implemented plan
against any competitive alternative. The neg should specify the actor of their alternative. Is it me? Is it the
world? The aff should press them on it. The alt must have a text. Specific is more persuasive than generic.
The alt should probably solve part of the case or have a very very good weighing mechanism to prevent
you from losing on case outweighs. For the aff, your best arguments are usually the permutation and the
lack of specificity of the kritik.
Critical affs – you must defend the plan. If you don’t, you lose. Framing arguments such as ethics or risk
calculus generally helps these affs – use them. The neg can never lose because they said nuclear war and
you read a reps K if they don’t go for it.
Theory – conditionality is best. Dispo is lame but acceptable. Unconditional CPs have the potential to be
devastating but tend not to be. Multiple CPs are acceptable, but the aff generally gets leeway in answering
ridiculous proliferation of CPs. International fiat is suspect. International fiat + US fiat is just ridiculous.
Textual competition is laughable. Private, object and utopian fiat are probably cheating. Consultation and
delay CPs are probably more uncompetitive than they are illegitimate. I reject the argument not the team.
Conditionality note: the status quo must always remain a logical option. If the 2NR goes for a CP, case and
a DA and the 2AR wins a DA to the CP – the aff can still lose on the DA outweighing the case.
Perms need to include all of the plan. Intrinsic perms can sometimes use concessions such as the neg
“search for the best policy” to justify themselves. Logic permutations are generally persuasive.
Case and disad – offense/defense paradigm might be bankrupt, but tends to go unchallenged. When it does,
the neg usually wins. Smart reasons why the DA turns the case are appreciated and very strategic.
Controlling the link direction is more important than uniqueness. More teams should go for case and disad
– it will lead to better points.
Impact calculus – start it early and make it comparative. Systemic versus one-shot disads is an important
debate. Magnitude vs. timeframe or magnitude vs. probability – have these debates or I will have them for
you.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Clark, Joshua
CSUF Damien High School
Judged 20+ rounds on this topic Background: I debated three years at Cal State Fullerton, one year before
that at CEU, and two years in high school. This year I coached full time at Damien High school. I love
debate, and I hope that you do too. The first thing that you should know is that I have limited rounds on this
topic, so a lot of the popular vernacular and acronyms of this years topics might be unknown me. Please use
a little bit more explanation on these types of issues, tantamount to that you would have used during the
first part of the year. Now to the specific postions:
Topicality: I default to competing interpretations on topicality. Jurisdiction means nothing to me. I have a
hunch that a lot of the teams that are reading this are interested in how I feel about topicality in general. My
response is that personally, I like the idea of a topic. I also like switch side debate and think that is an
important part of our activity that improves activist strategies, creates a fair standard for cases, and helps
with the depth part of education by investigating both sides of the topic intricately. I don’t personally like
affirmatives that say the state is bad, and will not advocate state action. I think that the topic represents a
social contract within debate, that to engage in the activity, we come planning to affirm and negate that
topic. I think that is a reasonable burden for K teams, because they are still allowed all of their framework
arguments as long as they advocate state action. This also allows negatives a stable advocacy within which
they can begin to debate. Now given that, will I listen and vote on impact turns to topicality? Yes, if you
win your argument, I will vote for you. But, if you lose on T or framework T arguments, will I vote against
you…also yes. For any of you whom I debated last year that seem surprised at these statements, know that
while I didn’t have a plan for two tournaments last year, know that I was uncomfortable while doing it,
because I didn’t think that it was fair. As for the RFA(Redlands/Fullerton Alliance) trick, which is
advocating state action as a result of personal activism that one individually affirming the topic has the
ability to create, this is another debate where I can definitely see good arguments to why it’s important to
allow negatives to have their uniqueness arguments and maybe, just maybe, even their politics D/A’s. But
if you are negative against this sort of a case, please adapt your T or Framework argument so that it applies
to the specific way in which someone advocates their plan. I think affirmatives win these arguments a lot of
time, because their framework arguments are too broad and generic or their T arguments are too specific
and don’t link. You should write and be ready to defend some reasons why the aff should have to defend
immediate implementation of plan. So in conclusion on T, you should know that I will vote on it, and I will
vote on Framework. I will also listen too and vote on the impact turns to both these arguments, and that
while I feel that an affirmative should defend immediate implementation of a topical plan, you still have to
read and win the right arguments.
D/A’s I thoroughly enjoy a good D/A debate. This is not the type of debater that I was the last two years in
college, but I love to hear them. I think the politics D/A is a guilty pleasure of the debate community,
because I think that it reverts back to should/would debate, but I have enjoyed researching and teaching my
high school teams to run it this year. Please feel free to read D/A’s in front of me. The K of D/A seems to
have become more and more common, so please be prepared to defend utilitarianism and/ or realism if you
are K’ed up by the duke. (this is more coaching than judging philosophy)
Counterplans I love a good CP that solves the case and avoids all the net benefits. It’s what ended my
career, and very well what SHOULD have ended my career. There are few things better than a well
researched PIC that just blind sites a team. As far as CP theory is concerned. I listen to these debates and
tend to SLIGHTLY lean negative on PICS and Dispositionality, but I SLIGHTLY lead aff on
Conditionality/Consult/ and International fiat arguments. Nonetheless, these have little or any affect on the
way that I evaluate a debate. Please be a little slower and clearer on these theory arguments because I
cannot flow a theory block and full Scotty P pace.
The K I was a kritik debater and a philosophy major in college and you are welcome to run a criticism in
front of me. I think that impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the
excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. You need to win that either
a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root
cause arguments are good, but rarely address the time frame issue of case impacts. If you are going to win
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts, or the affirmative needs
to not extrapolate to extinction impacts stemming from the 1ac. The other part of this debate that might be
specific to debating in front of me is the question of fiat. Saying fiat is illusory to me does not mean that the
case impacts go away. We’re not dumb and we know that fiat doesn’t exist, but the question of the criticism
should always be whether I prefer to do the alternative in light of the threats of affirmative and their
promise of solvency. No fiat does not mean the case goes away. Now that I have said that, I am willing to
listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, ect. come first.
Aff Framework arguments I understand the necessity of the arguments, but make sure you are extending
the parts of them in the 2ac and the 1ar that are germane to the debate. I’ve seen a lot of aff teams spend a
lot of time extending arguments that say they only have to defend their plan, when the neg’s K links
stemmed from the plan and not representations. I know a good aff framework argument is an aff’s best
friend.
Conclusion Given that, I love interesting debates that happen. I loved debating in front of Bill Shanahan
because I knew that something interesting was always going to happen in a round adjudicated by him. I
would enjoy seeing some of those same sorts of debates, but know that I do find value in a topic and it’s
parameters specified within. I also love to see two policy teams throw down over an Oil or Coal D/A. I love
debate and most forms of debate that happen within this activity. I also love the people. I wanted to
recognize Orion Steele and what a fantastic person he is. He has gotta be my favorite person in debate.
Debate will miss you and your 2ac’s. I also wanted to congratulate Joe and James for a fantastic year and a
fantastic career. I will always have pleasant thoughts of you two dancing around the room to “I touch
myself”. Good luck to everyone at this year’s NDT and savor every moment because sooner than later,
someone will tell you that you can’t play anymore.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Clark, Kathryn
Valley High School and Dartmouth College
List of things you should know if I am judging you:
1. I'm not incredibly familiar with "the literature" on this topic. My primary job is not debate related so I
have cut very few cards. I have been judging and attending Dartmouth meetings but that's about it. Most
arguments will be fine but if your internal politics DA requires a detailed understanding of the Iranian
government structure, you should probably explain that structure to me.
2. I think there is room for both "policy" and "critical" considerations within the same debate. You are
unlikely to convince me that I should categorically disregard either the kritik or the aff's ability to weigh the
plan. I am impressed by debaters who can intelligently deal with both. With either strategy, I prefer
specificity over generic claims. I think there's a world of difference between the prolif K when the aff reads
a prolif advantage and some generic kritik about psychoanalysis.
3. I strongly believe that topicality is a voting issue. I am generally unsympathetic of affs without plans and
entirely unsympathetic of affs who don't attempt to talk about the topic. I think the neg has to prove that the
aff is unreasonable, but I could be persuaded to vote on "our counter-interpretation is a tiny bit better." I
think topicality evidence is very important (especially exclusive evidence) - the topic determines ground,
not the other way around.
4. It will be very difficult to persuade me to vote on conditionality, dispositionality, and PICs. In general, I
don't like theory debates because I think debate is supposed to be difficult (obvious exceptions include
things like private actor fiat that make debate close to impossible). To get me to vote on any theory
argument, you will need to persuade me to overcome the presumption of "reject the argument, not the
team" even if the theory argument was dropped.
5. Counterplans that add conditions are almost certainly competitive because they PIC out of some of the
circumstances where the security guarantee or economic assistance is given.
6. Please be nice both to the other team and your partner. Debates are more enjoyable for everyone this
way. This means not getting into fights in cross-ex. Cross-ex questions are not better just because you ask
them with disdain.
7. I think the strict offense/defense paradigm is silly. Obviously, it’s tough to win if the CP solves your case
and you just have a couple of impact takeouts on the DA. But I think a team can win with defense alone if
it's good enough. The best explanation of this I stole from Hunter's judge philosophy: "there are all sorts of
hypothetical butterfly-effect consequences of the plan, which I assume to be of less than 1% risk, and
which are equally likely to be positive and negative in terms of their effects, hence cancelling each other
out. Thus, if you read a DA whose risk is reduced to less than 1%, I assume you've merely highlighted one
of the items in this list, which I am confident is cancelled out by some other item in this list."
8. I take evidence quality seriously. Qualifications are important and I prefer well-reasoned, wellresearched evidence over evidence that is "literally on fire" with outlandish claims. I think that analytical
arguments, if warranted and explained well, are just as good as cards from some blog.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Coburn Palo, Nick
College Prep (CA)
School
Strikes
=
Just
CPS
CXphilosophy = My job is to coach debate, so I take it prettyseriously. More than that, it’s an activity and
community which I feel a lot of love and respect for. I’ve coached for a little bit over ten years and
am currently a teacher and coach at College Prep (CA). I’m not aware of any cemented feeling I have
regarding theory issues or arguments. And that’s kind of the problem I’m having with writing this thing.
When people write judging philosophies they usually write about who they want to be, not who they
necessarily are. Whether this is consciousor unconscious, often philosophies are the judges equivilent of a
NewYears Resolution. I think the best way to get the straight dope is to
go to the debaters and ask. I’d track down one of the CPS debaters. For the most part, I think they’ll be
friendly and helpful. Since I feel the need to struggle with this probably futile task, I’ll
let you know three areas where I might consider myself a little bit quirkish. After that, I’ll offer my attempt
at a take on what I think good debate is, but if you are short on time - and need to highlight down
your politics cards instead - I won’t be offended if you skip that part:)
Topicality
I can be pushed off of this position without too much difficulty, but - in my heart of hearts - I believe in a
“reasonability”, as opposed to a “better definition”, standard on Topicality. The notion of “T” being a
“game of competing interpretations” has always struck me as kind of twisted, given the assymetric
outcomes for the affirmative and negative sides - for one side losing the game(s) is sudden death, on any
challenge, while the other side incurs no risk of damage at all. Pragmatically, I think that’s probably why I
don’t tend to pull the trigger on “T” very often unless in-round abuse is demonstrated.
Overviews
Given the nature of coaching at the TOC, this seems to a point of amplified importance. Anyone who has
been to the TOC for a few years is familiar with the phenomenon of a coach storming into a room to
interrogate a judge about dropping their team and having them reference the 2NR/2AR overview, in the
specific, without that coach having seen any of the debate. Charming. Very classy. It’s not that I expect
people not to read prewritten overviews, but please tweak them to the specifics of
our debate. Overviews can be truly round-saving, but more often they are as strategically useful as a pair of
cement shoes. Too often, they are overly prescripted, in that they don’t address the ways the strategies were
deployed in this specific debate, and/or they are little more than the equivalent of a “greatest hits CD” - a
long list of their favorite warrants and cards. It sometimes feels like debaters are thinking “as long as I say
it in my overview, it’s somewhere in the speech, so the judge had better apply it to the line-by-line for me”.
This really seems to pass the buck for being a good rebuttalist from the debater to the judge. I would truly
love overviews if they were attempts to identify the two or three literal questions that the debaters thought
were going through a judges mind, made strong “even if” comparisons between their warrants and the
strongest (most dangerous) warrants of their opponents within the framework of those questions, and
isolated a fairly small number of must read cards (depending upon the complexity of the debate, and letting
you know this is far from an absolute number, probably 3-8 cards). An overview like this would be truly
fantastic. It would mean that all I need to do as a judge is intellectually “check your work” as you nail the
specifics of your rebuttals “architecture” in the line-by-line. From the perspective of the debaters, it would
go a long way toward making the round “idiot proof”. In addition, although I’d say I’m usually a low point
judge, done effectively, this would light me up on speaker points like I was a pinball machine.
Mutual Respect
I am not the politeness police. However, I find it hard to suppress my intense dislike of mean spirited and
rude people. How does this manifest itself in a debate round. I don’t care how you dress or whether you
sit or stand when you speak. I do care if you attempt to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect in the
room. Insulting your opponents, marginalizing your partner, or venting your frustrations about the round
on your judge doesn’t seem consistent with that. Also, and this is a relatively small thing, consistently
stealing prep time makes you look very cheesy.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
The “How Do You See Debate” Rant
At the risk of being wrongly perceived as a technophile, let me try to offer a contemporary metaphor.
Pretend debate was a video game (okay, scary visual). You can score points by performing some clearly
prescribed action, but there is another meter on the screen in addition to your points scored. Kind of like an
energy meter. If your character is damaged in the course of getting those points the meter goes down.
Sometimes your character might do something exceptional and be awarded extra energy. However, that
energy might turn to be entirely irrelevant if you complete the goal of the game before your character’s
health allowance expires. I think that there are things debaters do in rounds that make judges
more or less inclined to vote for or against them. It’s manifests itself in the subconscious, but that doesn’t
mean it isn’t there. Debaters can manipulate their “good will” meter in manners which may have little
or nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of the line by line debate. The “good will” meter may be irrelevant in a
debate (if one team is clocking another), or it may be very important if the debate is close and the
judge is especially tired or stressed out. I think this reflects the practice of judging much more accurately
than the antiquated notion of a “blank slate”. I believe that debaters who are aware of this dynamic tend to
be the most successful in our activity. To me the best debaters are one part chess master and one part used
car salesperson. I love debaters with a great strategic sense and who use regional overviews in the last
rebuttal to clearly locate the ultimate function of significant chunks of arguments. Like most in our
community I also relish a fast paced comparison of the warrants of specific pieces of evidence. That’s the
chess master part. However, I also think that transcendently good debaters tend to be, as Paul Newman’s
character in the Color of Money described himself, “a student of human moves”. It allows a few debaters to
radiate an odd sort of credibility which seems to place them almost outside of the fray, like the narrator of
the story, attempting to help you to understand what’s going on. This “would you buy a used car from this
person” quality is actually a function of careful attention to a wide range of communication variables,
which I think is one of the more valuable things a person can take from debate. Please don’t let this freak
you out too much. Obviously, I believe this is totally compatible with high speed, very technical debate.
The best debaters just allow judges the luxury of enjoying the skills of a gifted salesperson and young chess
master at the same time. As for myself in particular, I know that I tend to react non-verbally to almost
everything I hear in a round. You might want to take notice of that, but be careful not to read too much into
it. My reactions probably are just reflecting your “good will” meter, not your “point score”... Finally, good
luck and congrats on getting to Kentucky. It is no small achievement.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Culpepper, Brent
The most important message to garner from this philosophy is that I have not judged a single debate on this
topic since camp debates. I feel confident that the topic and debates have evolved in such a way that those
debates are of little use to me when establishing my familiarity with the topic. So it is of vital importance
that you not assume that I am aware of any nuances that you have taken for granted throughout the year.
That being said, I have several proclivities and biases that you may wish to be aware of before allowing me
to judge you. I try and put forth my best effort to decide the debates that occur based that the arguments
presented by both teams although I’m sure I fail to achieve this task in various debates.
Here is the way I tend to view certain debate issues:
Critiques/Performance Debates: I start with this because this is where I am the least comfortable judging
debates. I am familiar to an extent with some critical theory but am by no means an expert.
For the negative, I am much more sympathetic to critique ground and believe it can be a valuable tool in a
2N’s arsenal. However, Critiques must either win that the alternative solves (or resolves) the affirmative at
some level – If you concede the affirmative advantages and fail to call them into question and do not have
an alternative that solves them then it will be difficult for you to win. That being said – certainly arguments
can be made that would lead me to disregard the affirmative advantages. However, those arguments are
often difficult given the presumed specificity of the affirmative’s evidence and the generic nature of most K
cards.
For the affirmative, I believe that unless otherwise persuaded the debate is about resolving whether the plan
is preferable to the Status Quo or a competitive policy option. I believe the affirmative should defend the
implementation of the plan – not just the plan as some transient moment in time that ruptures all of
international politics as only your plan could. There has also been an unfortunate trend among affirmatives
to merely say all of debate is bad, rules are bad and Topicality is nothing more than the Holocaust
reincarnated. I find all three of these claims to not just border but embrace the limitless abyss of absurdity.
If you find the debate community to be beyond salvation then I strongly encourage you to find another
activity worth your while and not continue to disrupt my ability to enjoy what you consider the root cause
of all violence. That being said, debate is ultimately about those debating and not me thus I will attempt to
remain an objective evaluator. The only time this goes away is if you ask me to become a part of debate or
ask my ballot to send a message. If you do this then I will not endorse something I do not politically believe
in. If the ballot is merely a telling of wins and losses then I will remain objective.
This does not mean that critical affirmatives are not cool. Many critical affirmatives claim advantages off
of a topical plan and that is a valuable argument choice of which I often find incredibly strategic.
Topicality – Topicality is ultimately about establishing a fair division of predictable ground that ensures
each team has access to a constructive debate. This means that my default is not the most limiting
interpretation but typically a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative that provides the best vision of
debate is sufficient.
Theory – Arguments require a certain level of logical coherence before I will regard them as arguments and
thus relevant to a decision. Many theory arguments fail to do this when they are blippy and ill explained.
Conditionality is almost always ok as well as PICS, Agent CPs etc….Although when your back is against
the wall do what must be done. Consultation counterplans are only competitive to me in a world where the
answer is No. In a world where the answer is yes, then it seems as though the permutation is plan plus.
CP/DA/Case Strategy – Sounds Good.
Cross-Examination – This is a vital portion of debates and can direct the outcome of a decision if done
correctly. Do not merely use it as preparation time for your partner.
Speaker Points – Two major factors that can increase speaker points are good C/X’s and high evidence
quality. They can also decrease speaker points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Everything that I have said above are my biases. I don’t believe I left anything of note out. However,
remember that the object of debate is to WIN. When facing another team that you will need to upset or
what have you – do what you think gives you the best chance at winning. Just understand that what I’ve
written above can affect the ability of certain arguments to be persuasive to me. At the end of the day,
remember that while for some this is your last high school tournament, don’t get so caught up in it that you
fail to spend time hanging out with the friends you have made. That may even beat out winning as your
first priority.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Elson, John
I debated for Round Rock High School (a small school near Austin without a coaching staff) and I'm
currently a sophomore at UNT. I qualified for the TOC in high school and, last year, qualified for the NDT
and reached the octos of CEDA. Last year, I coached Eric and Leah of the Woodlands. They had a very
successful year, including reaching semis of the TOC.
Philosophy:
If you win the argument, I’ll vote for you on it. That said, I don’t know the finer points of critical theory
very well so K’s may take some extra explanation. I also tend to think certain affirmative arguments against
K’s are just true, which makes them difficult to win. I think life is almost always worth living, for example.
As a rule, I don’t like language arguments.
I am fine with every variation of disad and counterplan but I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments. I
prefer a few, well explained theory arguments to a 15 point block of four word phrases. If you spend 45
seconds explaining your argument in depth and drop “neg flex, need to kick stuff” at the bottom, I’ll
probably vote for you anyway.
I think analytical arguments are the heart of debate and, if an argument is logical and well explained, you
can occasionally get away with not reading evidence to support it.
My judging is strongly informed by the Offense/Defense school of thought, but I am not a strict
Offense/Defense judge. It is possible to win a 100% takeout to a disad or have a negligible net benefit to a
counterplan. Impact calculus is almost always the majority of my decisions.
I judge T based on competing interpretations and I think limits are most important standard. It is possible to
convince me to look at T differently, but that's my default.
Last, a lot of things people think are impacts are, in fact, internal links. Democracy, tyranny, free speech,
prolif, imperialism, biopower, deterrence, treating subjects as objects, the existence of nuclear weapons,
Vietnam/Iraq, etc, are all internal links, not impacts. Please read cards establishing that these things are
good or bad.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Evans, Kirk
St. Stephen’s
UT-Austin
I like big picture thinking and good stories. Debate should not be an incoherent stream of random
arguments (unless you’re performing surrealist montage), but a warranted narrative that compels my ballot.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fast and technical—I would welcome that. But technique for
technique’s sake is ultimately off-putting. Because of my preference for big pictures, I tend to start with the
question of “what is most important?,” and then figure out who’s winning those arguments, as opposed to
diving into the flow and resolving all of the details of the debate first.
I like theory, but hate most theory debates. If you want to win theory, then once again your arguments need
to be transformed into some larger story. I rebel against the adjudication of debates where two teams just
dump their theory blocks on me.
Counterplans: I lean neg on the legitimacy of counterplans, and aff on most competition questions.
Disads: Impact calculus that wasn't just a rote recitation of probability/magnitude/timeframe would be nice.
Kritiks: I like them occasionally and vote for them often.
Topicality. I’m a T-hack in high school, but rarely vote for it in college.
Topicality. I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of most Topicality arguments, but nonetheless find myself
voting neg more often than not if the aff interpretation sucks.
Kritikal Affs: These debates are often about whose impact is most important. Often resolution of this
question requires me to evaluate the formal aspects of debate. In other words, What are the impacts to
various forms of debating?
Finally, please do not access the internet during the course of the debate.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Ewing, Jack
Topicality - I dont know very much about the topic so if you decide to go for topicality be very careful to
describe in detail what affs would be allowed and what would be disallowed and why that matters. I
generally view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations but that is always open to debate.
Theory - I generally err neg on theory. If you go for theory please do not spew through theory blocks at a
million mph.
Kritiks - I ran them alot and am in general very well read in the critical area that you are talking about. This
does not mean that I prefer these arguements but just that I am more farmiliar with the literature. If you are
going for the K please make sure you have a well developed alternative or if you dont have one explain
why its not necessary.
CPs - They're Fine. I don't really like consult counterplans to be honest but that does not mean that I wont
vote on them.
Case specific PICs are awesome.
Be clear, agressive and smart and you will be rewarded. Have FUN. If you have any other questions feel
free to ask me.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Farra, Adam
The University of Michigan (HS: Dexter)
Tournaments Judged At: University of Michigan Camp Tournament, The University of Michigan
Tournament, Tournament of Champions, and a few local tournaments in Michigan.
Congratulations on making it to the TOC. I know how hard you worked as a debater, so you can expect me
to work as hard (or harder) as your judge.
1. I am a young judge: I debated for Dexter High School for 4 years, and debated for the University of
Michigan for 4 years.
2. Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations, absent an argument about why I should prefer
some alternative framework for evaluating Topicality (e.g. affirmative predictability, “reasonability,”
increasing education over a particular subject, etc.). The strongest interpretations in Topicality debates (for
me) are ones that a) fairly limit the topic, and b) are contextually grounded. If the topic literature supports
your interpretation, and you can spin your interpretation as providing predictable and fair ground for both
sides (I think contextual support is a big part of this, too), then you will probably win the debate. In terms
of this topic, "Public Health Assistance" is what I have heard the most debates about, but I have no set ideas
on what it means.
3. Kritiks: If you are making critical arguments then the rule of thumb should be that the more specific your
evidence (and your analysis), the better. I have grown to be less and less of a fan of these arguments as I
have aged, and the reason is because I see these arguments deployed primarily to prevent debate rather than
to allow it. For example, the negative never wants to debate the alternative or the meat of the links - they
always only want to beat the aff on "You dropped 'your epistemology is suspect'! The aff harms are madeup!" or some other nonsense. If you want to have a real debate about paternalistic neocolonialism in Africa,
or surveillance and biopolitics, or whatever - then have that debate! - but don't find me sympathetic if the
2NR is all just extending Kritik buzzwords in hopes I check in on "Ethics first means I ignore the aff."
4. Going Farther Left: I don’t find myself to be a warrior in the clash of civilizations. I enjoy critical
affirmatives, and I think that all affirmatives should have a critical edge for strategic purposes – but if you
do not have a plan text or some sort of stable statement of advocacy/intent then I will have a hard time
accepting that your affirmative is fair and predictable.
5. Identity Politics/Minority Participation: I honestly don’t know how I feel about these debates.
Competitively, I dreaded having to debate teams that said this all the time. However, my personal
experiences make me believe that meaningfully increasing minority participation in debate is important. I
accept that different people have different methods to achieve this; however, I am having a hard time
accepting that it is the form of debate that must change first, rather than recruitment efforts.
6. DAs: Good “true” defense is probably a better strategy than going for bad offense (you should have
offense elsewhere in the debate). I do believe in the "risk assessment" approach to judging DAs - there will
probably be a "risk of a link," or a "risk of the impact." However, I differ from the rest of the "risk cult" in
that I think a small risk is comparable to zero. There is no meaningful difference to me between 0% risk of
a link and 10-15% risk of a link.
7. CPs: You should read David Heidt’s judging philosophy, because he says it far better than I ever could.
However, I'll regurgitate some of the things I think are important. "You need a solvency advocate for your
CP...a piece of evidence that compares the action of the plan to the action of the CP...your evidence should
be reasonably specific."
The exception to this is when the affirmative is contrived nonsense - if it has no solvency advocate and is
simply a bunch of random actions (and random evidence) strung together, then the negative probably can
convince me to suspend some of my ideas about CP theory.
In more concrete terms, this means the following: I don't like consultation CPs. I don't like utopian,
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
unconstitutional, or obviously ridiculous action CPs. I don't like CPs with multiple actors. I like PICs, but I
want the excluded part of the plan to be substantial (not something tiny and stupid). I do think reciprocity is
important, so if you can explain to me what the affirmative has done that justifies you crafting your CP in
this particular way then I'll be far more sympathetic to you - as opposed to people who simply scream
"WE'RE NEGATIVE! WE GET FIAT!"
8. “Style”: Clarity is SO important to me. I sometimes find myself being the only judge on a panel that is
yelling “Clear!” to a debater who is CLEARLY slurring the words in the text of a card just so that he/she
can make it to the next one. Don't get me wrong - I keep a great flow. Actually, make that AMAZING flow.
But, if you are not clear, then I will be impatient and irritated, and will probably punish you for it in some
way (your speaker points, or simply ignoring vast swaths of your speech). As for being “mean” – I think
some aggression adds spice to the debate, although hurling insults is different than cornering your opponent
in CX. I'm not a speaker point fascist, but if you are unclear you can expect some damage.
9. The hardest debates for me to judge are ones where one team has great evidence, but the other team is
doing the better spin (with worse evidence). I think most judges struggle with this, but I’m a young judge,
so I’m probably having a harder time than most. If you can help me grapple with this issue in your debate,
than you’re in a pretty good spot (regardless of which side you’re on).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Forslund, Eric
Damien High School
The first thing that I should say is that I have spent the last two years in graduate school judging high-level
college debates on a weekly basis. While I don’t know exactly how that will impact how I judge in high
school, it should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of
clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn’t apply to the topic, and
failing to explain why it does is not! Now on to the philosophy
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 the last three years, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the
debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:
1. 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.
2. 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 later on in the
year than I am at the first few tournaments. 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 not to be mean 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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Gagnon, Julian
Affiliation = highland park (dallas tx); grapevine
This is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas
about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally
dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments
so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations
framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on
thatframework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok
no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally
not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the
uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do
find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but
i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any
way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the
neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all
pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene
sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and
you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you
just wasted a bunch of peoples time.
another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR
NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to
power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm
starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full
of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to
this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Gibson, Kirk
Judging for: Pace Academy
Rounds on the Topic: 5
Years Debating: 6
If you don't know me, I debated competitively in high school and now for Georgia State, reaching elims of
the NDT this year. So while I am not familiar with the topic much, I have a fairly good idea of what's going
on. So with that said, here are some particulars of how I judge:
Topicality: I like to think that I am more likely than a lot of judges to vote on T. A good topicality debate,
in my opinion, requires evidence beyond the definition in the 1NC. Obviously this is easier to do on terms
of art, rather than words like "substantially," but that's what makes those more enjoyable. Comparison of
education, ground, limits, etc. needs to start earlier than the 2NR and the more effective it's done, the easier
my decision will be. Finally, I also tend to look at T through competing interpretations.
Disads and Counterplans: Great. I love creative counterplans or creative disad scenarios (even if it's just the
impact). I love thorough politics debates and don't think I see these enough.
Critiques: I am warming up to the K after not liking them for a while. So I still have my biases a little bit,
but I'll explain those. K debates need to be able to articulate what in the 1AC (or whatever other speech) is
an example of the link. It's not enough to say that they "use security rhetoric" or "try to understand and
manage the world," or whatever it may be. I like to see link examples out of the 1AC and be able to point to
specific evidence, or specific quotes in my decision. I also prefer topic specific kritiks to your general Zizek
business. Finally, I need to see more impact comparison of the K. Why does value to life come before
calculation? Or why does the impact turn the case, even if you lose the alternative solvency?
Theory: I have a harder time voting here, most of the time it's because teams just read their good/bad blocks
with a million points at top speed. If your A-strat has to be theory, make it as specific as possible and
explain the interaction. I.E. "conditional PICs are bad" or "one-word PICs are bad" and I think I'll (as well
as many other judges) will have an easier time.
Pet Peeves: Unnecessary aggression, rebuttals that throw around the word "conceded" when that's clearly
not the case, the phrase "cold conceded"
Speaker Points and other things: 27.5 is about average, 28 is a good performance, 28.5 is above average, 29
and up is speaker award worthy.
If you have specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the debate starts
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Gjerpen, Katie
Affiliation: MSU
Background: I currently debate for Michigan State University. I generally consider myself to be a policy
maker, however, I am open to most arguments as long as they are well developed, impacted and explained.
I was a lab assistant at the SDI this summer, and thus have some experience with topic. However, err on the
side of caution – if you think an argument needs explanation, it probably does.
Topicality: I tend to have a slight aff bias on t, but that should not discourage negs from going for it. I will
vote on t if the neg can articulate why the aff is either untopical, or why the specific plan/advantages are
abusive.
Disads: These are a good idea. I will vote on ‘disad outweighs the case’ and/or ‘disad turns the case’ – both
are very compelling arguments for me. As an affirmative, you must answer these arguments explicitly in
order to weigh your case against the disad impacts.
Counterplans: Also a good idea. I think that counterplans that solve all or most of the affirmative are very
compelling neg arguments. I also tend to err neg on counterplan theory, as counterplans are one of the
limited ways the neg can solve the affirmative.
Kritiks: I have no problem voting for a kritik if it a) the alt solves the advantages (or most of the case) or b)
the implications outweigh or turn the case. I am not as well versed in k literature as other judges, so it
would be a good idea to have a good explanation as to why I should vote on it.
Case: I really enjoy a good case debate. I think it is a good way for the aff to win a lot of offense on
arguments, and also a good place for the negs to exploit the aff.
For all arguments, I think it is very important to have good evidence comparison, line by line and impact
calculus. All of these will also be reflected in speaker points.
I do read evidence after rounds, especially if it is indicted or flagged. My biggest pet peeve is teams that are
rude or mean during cross-x or speeches (I’ll most likely dock your speaker points). Funny or charismatic
is good (as I’ll most likely boost your speaker points).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Gordon, Malcolm
Malcolm Gordon (The Barstow School/UMKC)
I’m in my first year out of college.
Theory:
I will vote on theory, but the aff will need a pretty decisive victory. I enjoy competing interpretations of
dispositional counterplan theory. I am willing to listen to reasons artificial competition might be bad (or at
least justify certain kinds of perms), or multi-actor fiat bad. I think for the most part dispositionality is ok,
conditionality is more questionable.
Framework debates are ok but I rarely think they are a voting issue. I’m much more compelled that
winning the “policy good” framework means you get to weigh your advantages/disadvantages against the
criticism.
Topicality:
I believe in reasonable interpretations, meaning that competing interpretations are good, but any risk of
offense in favor of your interpretation isn’t going to justify a neg ballot. You have to prove a pretty
tangible impact which real implications for ground. Just saying ‘limits good’ isn’t going to cut it.
Counterplans:
They are good.
Disads:
They are good.
Impact turning:
Always enjoyable.
Kritiks:
Great, just make sure the alt solves or at least turns the aff.
Look, you should do whatever is most comfortable for you in front of me, just make sure you debate well
and understand your argument. I’ll listen to any argument (for now). Who knows, in a few years maybe
I’ll hate anything that’s not an unconditional counterplan
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Gray, Tami
Background : I have never debated. I’ve watched my own kids in literally over 100 rounds a year for over 5
years - both have made it to the TOC, so these are national not local tournaments. I have judged (mostly
Novice & JV) rounds for the past 3+ years. I can handle speed and flow fine.
I believe debate should be Plan (course of action) vs. status quo or other alternative. Stock issues should be
addressed – I think it sets easily definable ground for both sides. Fiat within the bounds of debate is a good
thing (imagine a world where the affirmative plan is enacted & debate whether we should do the plan). I
realize my ballot doesn’t change the world, but I would like the debate to be about should the Aff plan exist
and how the world would be. Therefore FIAT IS ILLUSORY doesn’t get too far with me. If you want to
build a new framework you’ll need to explain & defend it well to win. The farther away you are from
center field, the more time and explanation you will need to give to win the argument.
Performance Aff’s – I think when you are Affirmative you have to defend the resolution in some fashion
and have some course of action to get there (narratives with an advocacy statement or alternative are fine –
poetry and song with no real action, is not). Fair & predictable ground for the Neg outweighs the Aff
arbitrarily deciding what they want to talk about. When you are neg & want to do a Kritik – and you can
explain how it functions BOTH within & outside the round, I’ll listen.
If it’s not on my flow then I can’t evaluate it. Don’t be too BLIPPY or unclear as to where it should be
flowed or how it applies to the point you are trying to make. I will NOT vote on evidence read that it
doesn’t seem YOU understand, lots of big words don’t win – you need to break it down and defend it. Be
careful with K’s and theory that you can’t understand or defend. I TRY to decide the round only on
arguments presented.
I don’t go for RVI’s and just saying this is a voting issue doesn’t make it one. Warrants & impacts or real
abuse are needed.
I have not had many incidents that I consider TOTALLY unacceptable to debate (unacceptable would
include : disrespecting your opponent, inappropriate and vulgar language, sexist - racist - homophobic
remarks, interruptions during opposition’s prep or speech time, evidence fabrication or ethics challenges)
but I don’t have ANY tolerance for this. It will threaten speaker points and more. Expect a rant from me at
the end if you do engage in such behavior.
Explain your arguments & tell me WHY they are important. I prefer explanation over more heaps of
evidence. Brilliant analytics can beat a squirrelly piece of evidence any day. Don’t just put arguments and
rebuttals out there – provide resolution to the argument. Connect the arguments, warrants, resolutions and
summarize WHY you are winning. PLEASE do impact analysis – magnitude, probability, timeframe. Good
debate depends on argument resolution - don’t leave the most important work of CONNECTING THE
DOTS to the judge. If this is done as an overview – great, but don’t just do an overview to use up time &
restate (in the same way) what you said the first time. Debaters that clearly and cleverly resolve arguments
usually get my vote & good speaker points, too.
Bottom line, it's your game (within the boundaries). Have fun !!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Greenstein, Michael
I think the most frustrating thing for a debater is when a judge refuses to vote on certain arguments. When I
judge I try my best to be open to all arguments. That being said, I would be lying if I wrote that there were
not certain arguments I’d rather hear and am much better at evaluating. Generally speaking, I am a fan of
policy debate.
The more case specific the strategy is, the better. Stylistically, clarity is of utmost importance. During your
speech, if it sounds like you are speaking a foreign language (other than Italian – I know Italian), then I am
not going to evaluate those arguments and will likely tank your points. Yes, this absolutely means I will
never vote for: you failed to read the 1AC in Spanish
I love judging debates; I really do. But, because of some recent ones that I have judged, I feel like I need to
comment on some specific issues.
1. This is probably most important: Just because I ran it doesn't mean I like it. Under this category you can
place topicality, aspec, ospec, any other spec, consult X actor, time cube, objectivism, theory etc. Here is an
example of an Aspec debate I judged to highlight how dumb some of these arguments really are:
The 1AC doesn't specify the agent. The 2n's CX of the 1ac lasts 90 seconds and the 2n fails to ask who the
agent is. The negative runs Aspec, a courts CP, and politics. The 2ac just goes along with it, answers the CP
and politics as if their agent was the Congress. The 2nr goes for just Aspec. At this point, if a monkey had
stood up for the 2ar and just banged the table, ate a banana, and/or scratched itself in various places I
definitely would have voted aff. With regards to Aspec I truly believe the CX checks. I don't see how a
good 2ar could ever fail to persuade a judge of that. On the contrary, if the aff doesn't specify in the 1ac, the
neg asks about it and the aff still fails to specify, then I don't see how even someone who has never debated
before could fail to persuade me to vote neg.
2. Affirmatives that don't read a plan, don't defend the effects of their plan, and/or do other crazy shit
should have a hard time persuading me to vote for them. Really, the reason I am writing this is not that
won't vote for this crap, but because I hate listening to it and would rather be stabbing myself repeatedly
with a dull spoon than listening to a debate about it.
3. I hate judges who think an amazing speech deserves only a 28.5. If you are sweet, you will get sweet
points. The bottom line though is that I am here for YOU. So, you should do whatever it is you need to do
to have fun and win. The funnier you are and the more you can make me laugh the better your points will
be.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Groves, Dylan
EXPERIENCE
4 year high school policy debater (2 years Los Gatos High School, 2 years bellarmine college prep), 2006
TOC 1 1/2 year college debate at UC Berkeley, but no longer.
i have judged about 100 rounds on this topic, though done relatively little research on it.
GENERAL
i like debaters who dont take themselves too seriously, communicate effectively, and win debates with
quality of arguments rather than making the other team fuck up.
that said, my enforcement of those preferences happens almost entirely in speaker points - when it comes to
winning and losing i have respect for the freedom of debaters to make the debate into what they will.
THEORY
rarely went for it and would rather not vote on it. I tend to err negative on conditionality, pics, and other
counterplan theory, but can be convinced otherwise.
TOPICALITY
many 1nrs of my career were spent going for topicality, so i am generally versed in and receptive to the
technical arguments that get made in topicality debates. that said, i fee like many of those 1nrs were spent
making contrived distinctions to acheive better limits that are nowhere based in the literature. so while i
will vote on a "we allow ten cases they allow 11" debates, the most persuasive standard in a topicality
debate is using evidence to prove the "truth" of an interpretation.
i am pretty convinced that competing interpretations is the best framework to evaluate a topicality debate.
KRITIK / POLICY / FRAMEWORK
Am generally read in kritical literature (though have little experience going for the kritik and therefore
might not be as well versed in tricks and shortcuts a lot of kritik-friendly judges are).
I think a lot of kritik debates are won and lost on questions of what the ballot means, though i dont have a
particular bias between policy and kritik positions on the issue.
IMPACTS
if it becomes a count the nuclear wars debate i have no issues, but i reward debaters who engage internal
link/impact debates more deeply than just time frame/magnitude/probability. more than many judges, i give
special credit to persuasiveness on impact debates beyond the line by line - call it a hangover from
spending half my career debating in front of parents.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Hall, Brad
BACKGROUND:
I debated for four years at Wake Forest University and I am now in graduate school at Wake Forest,
coaching the Demon Deacons and Glenbrook North. I worked at the Wake Forest workshops last summer,
and I have judged at the Wake Forest Earlybird, the Glenbrooks, and MBA so I have a solid familiarity
with the topic, but probably not as in depth as many of you.
GENERAL:
Debate should be hard, but not impossible. My default is to weigh the topical parts of the plan versus the
status quo or a competitive policy option. What follows are my defaults, but I am certainly not wedded to
them and can imagine myself voting exactly the opposite in practice. Switching to an argument you are less
comfortable with will only hurt your chances of winning the debate, and there are only a few arguments I
can never see myself voting on. Your speaker points may be slightly lower if you win on wipeout, etc., but
think of it this way: the 8-0 team doesn’t need to care about their points.
THEORY GENERALLY:
Rejecting the argument, not the team, is always my default position unless there is a well
warranted/explained reason for rejecting the team. This means extending “intrinsic perm is a voter” in the
2NR will only warrant rejection of the permutation. I am serious about this: last year at Kentucky, I voted
neg despite the block dropping “dispositional CP’s are a voting issue.” A 2AR consisting only of theory
had better be very very good on “it’s a voter” or else they are likely to lose on the net benefit outweighing
the case after the counterplan is rejected. A 2AR which goes for theory for half of the speech and then
spends the remaining time weighing the plan versus the status quo is a much better option. Conditionality is
the one area where I struggle with the voting issue question, but I would prefer the debaters propose an
alternate remedy – e.g. stick the 2NR with the cplan if they kicked it, or kick the cplan if the 2NR went for
it. “But that remedy doesn’t really help us” should be translated as “we are going for this not because it
really hurt our chances of winning the debate, but because we were inadequate in other areas.” Extending,
or even initiating, many cheap shots will not help your speaker points or your chances of winning the
debate. I believe judges who actively enjoy voting on cheap shots (you know who you are) should rethink
their contribution to this activity and ask what possible end could be served by their model of debate.
Having said all of this, sometimes ya gotta do what ya do and if that means going for PICs bad, so be it.
COUNTERPLANS:
I strongly lean negative on conditionality/dispositionality, PICs, 2NC, and multiple counterplans. I lean aff
on consultation, states, condition on X and utopian counterplans (WOMP, anarchy, etc). Agent and
international fiat are up in the air. Against a new aff, I think the negative gets more leeway on theory but is
still constrained by the logic of policy choice. If you are negative, please spend 10 or 15 seconds stating the
status of your counterplan during the 1NC. No one wants to hear the first half of cross-ex taken up by a
rousing debate over the definition of dispositionality. The negative should be careful not to screw up your
cplan text and smart affs should be more willing to take advantage of counterplan errors. I do not
understand the logic of the arguments in favor of textual competition, but if you want to try and educate me
on this important and constantly evolving issue in contemporary debate, feel free.
P.S. Does the idea that consultation CP's and other non-textually competitive CP's are terrible for debate,
but generics like Lopez are cool strike anyone else as incoherent?
DISADS:
I am not particularly a fan of the “we control uniqueness… there’s only a risk of the link” school of thought
but I can certainly understand its utility and if you are doing pretty well on the link AND controlling
uniqueness, you’re probably fine. Impact calculus is often the weak point of these debates… going beyond
“the timeframe to our disad is two days because the India deal will come up for a vote on Monday but the
plan’s impact is like a million years because we can never solve racism” is a good first step. Strong impact
calculus and comparison/anticipation of your opponent’s impact calculus is of the utmost importance. I am
not totally sold on offense/defense as I am not willing to give a team credit just for asserting a link to
hegemony and then reading the Khalilzad card. Strong analytical arguments will reduce the risk of a disad,
but unchallenged portions of a disad (or any other argument, for that matter) will be considered true.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Finally, uniqueness is rarely absolute – even if you win a 95% chance of “aid to South Africa now,” if you
don’t answer the link you will probably lose (especially true when there is a counterplan that solves the
whole case).
KRITIKS:
I am not as predisposed against kritiks as you might think, although the biggest barrier to persuading me to
vote on them is my lack of knowledge about many kritiks combined with the debaters’ lack of explanation
to fill in that missing knowledge. As a debater, I was heavily reliant on framework arguments against
kritiks, but as a judge, I have been fairly reluctant to entirely dismiss a kritik on wrong forum-style
arguments. I have been more likely to evaluate the world in which the plan happens and not let the neg
“fiat” their alternative but instead evaluate the likelihood of its adoption. But, to be fair, I have not seen a
well debated defense of the policymaking framework extended in the 2AR so I am not entirely sure how
this will play out. The negative can overcome some of my anti-kritik biases by reading evidence about the
necessity of their kritik, defending kritiks on theoretical grounds, and making the kritik as specific to the
affirmative as possible. If you are aff, framework arguments (which are not always an end in and of itself,
but should also be used to weigh the affirmative impacts versus the kritik), the permutation, impact turns
and pragmatism-style arguments will go a long way. Be sure to answer arguments like “no value to life,”
“the critique is a prior question,” “all your harms are inevitable,” and floating PICs (which seem unfair to
me). If you are neg, you should focus on applying your arguments to the specific aff you are debating,
explaining why your impacts make theirs inevitable/outweigh the case/are a prior question/deny the value
to life/etc, and emphasizing the importance of representations (or whatever your K framework is) for
policymaking.
If you are running a kritik, however, take note: I will find it very difficult to vote for an argument at the end
of the debate that I do not really understand. I am not willing to tell the aff that they lost to an argument
which I cannot explain somewhat to them at the end of the debate. Be warned that I might require greater
explanation of kritiks than some other judges – I am not sure if it is because my brain does not understand
the logic of most kritik arguments but I will try my best to understand your kritik if you try hard to explain
it.
TOPICALITY:
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I’m not firmly in one camp or the other when
it comes to competing interpretations vs. reasonability. The aff should focus more on reasonability against
arbitrary/contrived topicality arguments, especially when the neg has little or no definitional support. While
I am open to kritiks on the negative, I am less open to affirmatives that do not defend the resolution. My
biases are certainly in favor of the affirmative reading a topical plan and generating advantages from the
federal government acting, although this is not an automatic win for a negative team which is poor at
explaining framework arguments. No real biases about what Africa-specific topicality violations, probably
because I haven't judged any in-depth T debates (that I remember).
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
A vastly underutilized facet of debate. Please take prep time to get the cards your partner needs before
starting the cross-ex. Politics disads and other suspect arguments can be significantly reduced with a good
cross-ex. This will help your speaker points as well as your odds of winning the debate. Conversely, a bad
cross-ex may hurt your speaker points and decrease the likelihood of winning. I consider cross-ex an
important extension of speech time. As a result, you should avoid answering a good question with “we’ll
answer that in our next speech” or “you didn’t make that argument in the 2AC” unless you follow it up
with “but our answer is…”. If the 2NC refuses to answer a logical question, especially on a position whose
substance was expanded significantly in the block, I am willing to give the 1AR flexibility to make what
you might consider “new” answers. I do not have a problem with occasional interventions by your partner
into your cross-ex, but, much like reading the Dillon 1999 card, please do this sparingly.
SPEAKER POINTS/HABITS OF HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL DEBATERS:
Obviously, following all of the above advice to the extent possible will improve your speaker points.
Speaking clearly, not going for too much in the 2NR/2AR, being funny, having a strategic vision, and
having a sweet specific strategy, not losing the forest for the trees, pointing out the inadequacies of the
other team’s evidence, are also good ways to improve your points. Being mean, speaking too quickly that
your arguments can’t be flowed, speaking incomprehensibly, wasting cross-ex or speech time, bullying
weaker teams, not comparing your arguments to the other team’s arguments, going for every argument you
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
read in the debate, etc are all very good ways to decrease your points but also to improve your odds of
losing the debate. I have found myself giving higher points in close policy debates in which the aff and neg
are both making smart arguments and going for case turns/other small and case-oriented strategies at the
end of the debate. Argument quality and strong cross-examinations heavily influence speaker points.
FINAL NOTE(S):
1. Because I believe most debaters work hard, I will work hard for you when I am judging you. I apologize
for the length this process sometimes takes, but I try to give both sides a fair hearing and consider most
relevant evidence (see #3).
2. Strong impact calculus and comparison of your arguments to the other team’s arguments are often the
keys to success. The debates that I have judged so far have often come down to two things. First, one team
fails to answer the impact calculus of the other team (DA turns the case etc) AND they also fail to establish
a weighing mechanism between the two. Comparing the inevitable but long term impact of your advantage
to a quicker disad that turns the case is crucial for winning. Second, cover all the small arguments on the
line by line. I have found myself agreeing with one side’s big picture of the debate, but then voting against
them because they screwed up a small part of the line-by-line (dropping a link takeout, DA turns case, etc).
3. Reading evidence – I tend to read evidence on the most important issues in close debates. Evidence
quality often strongly influences my decisions, but I try to let the debating guide my reading of evidence.
Concessions of bad evidence are concessions, even if the evidence doesn’t say much. That being said, if a
debate is very close and one side’s evidence is stronger, I am likely to vote for them.
If you have any further questions, feel free to e-mail me or ask me in person. Good luck.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Hamraie, Aimi
General:
-I have a really high threshold for argument extensions/explanations.You've got to say more than just a
tagline. For example, if the other team drops an argument, you will not get away with "they dropped our
arg that the DA is nonunique." You have to extend a warrant. If the other team drops your perm, you have
to say more than "they dropped the perm." You have to say why it avoids the net benefit, etc. Impact
calculus is also especially important.
-I like debaters who think and act strategically. I will reward you for tricky strategies, good evidence,
comparisons of arguments, and making smart choices. Debate is about capitalizing on other people's
mistakes. Do it.
-I fundementally believe that debate should be hard. I sometimes think abusing the other team is legitimate
to equalize win ratios. I find it annoying when people whine about debate being hard when they cannot
articulate a reason why said difficulty is a reason they should win debates.
K's:
-I evaluate kritiks sort of like disads and CP's—you don't have to have an alternative but I generally think
offense requires uniqueness. I find it extremely annoying participating in or judging hypergeneric critical
debates in which either side makes totalizing assumptions and impact claims. With that said, I think the neg
(or the aff, whoever is making the args) gets away with a lot of stuff because the other team doesn't call
them out on it. Framework questions are important—what is the role of the ballot? How does the
alternative function? What does the alt do to the 1ac? If you're aff and you're not asking these questions you
are probably in trouble.
-Critical affs are fine as long if you have a topical plan. If you read a performance aff or have args that are
similar to that you need to explain how I should evaluate what you're doing.
-I find it very frustrating and difficult when I am asked to personally endorse something or attitudinally
endorse someone's strategy for social change within debate. If you are going to make arguments like this,
ask me to evaluate them theoretically, not as an individual. I am tired of people bringing my identity
politics into debate, into the community, and into discussions of what the activity means. Please stop.
-Last thing—I think a lot of people will assume I'm ideologically anti-K because of the way I debated, but
that isn't necessarily true. I work on a lot of critical theory for school, and I did a lot of our K work when I
debated. Ideas should be contested, and debate seems like a good forum in which to do that. I might still
think you sound stupid when you say certain things (see above) but that doesn't mean that you should
change the way you debate for me. Treat it like a disad with impacts and you'll be golden.
T/theory:
-I will probably not be a great judge for T. I only ever went for T twice in my debate career; I don't like
thinking about grammar, etc. I do think T violations can sometimes be strategic and I guess I'd say that they
are like other arguments in that you have to win offense if you're neg for why your interp is good for the
topic. I'm probably a bit more lenient on aff reasonability args. ---The same probably goes for theory.
Theory arguments are usually stupid and underdeveloped, unless someone surprises you with a PIC you're
not ready for and you have nothing else to go for. I have enjoyed watching theory debates in which there
weren't just blocks being read (especially in the last two rebuttals) but the debaters gave examples of in
round abuse and potential abuse and why it mattered. I'm kind of nonchalant about a lot of things. You have
to tell me why I should care. Generally, if you go for T or theory I will probably think you are lazy.
CP's/DA's:
-I love love love big DA/case debates. I love it when the neg impact turns the aff. I hate it when they aren't
technically savvy enough to win those debates because they don't make risk assessments and impact
calculus.
-Big abusive CP's that do everything but the aff are great for the neg, but I think you should have a
theoretical justification of why you read them. At the same time, if someone reads the Congress CP, I'd
much rather hear your substantive answers than a generic agent CP's bad debate.
-I will think CP/plan/perm texts are important and should be written out at least by the end of the debate for
comparison. I will probably also think that you have the burden of explaining whatever you just said does.
-Do not just extend arguments and expect me to read tons of evidence for you after the round. You may end
up angry at me, or lucking out, but your speaker points will reflect the degree to which I think you lucked
out by not explaining your arguments. Tricky arguments will get you extra points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
-It is entirely possible for affs to win by going for defense against disads as long as it is good defense and
they are winning offense elsewhere. Uniqueness contributes to but does not wholly determine the direction
of the link. It is your job to make args that supplant the link to your DA.
Speaker points:
-I consider a 28.5 to be really solid. 28 is about average. 29 is awesome. 29.5 means you should be a top 5
speaker.
-I heavily reward people who use cross-x effectively. I think it's the most important part of the debate and
you should use it strategically
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Harrigan, Casey
Affiliation: Wake Forest / Westminster
META-STUFF: I will do my best to avoid interjecting my personal beliefs into the debate and allow the
teams debating to determine the important issues of the round. Intervention, though, to some degree is
inevitable. You should understand this and debate in a manner that makes me more likely to see things your
way.
1) My default position: at the end of the debate, I evaluate whether the plan is better than the status quo or a
competitive alternative. I believe fairly strongly in plan focus. Arguments that respond to the value of
claims that the Affirmative has made that are not tied to the plan (think, gendered language or ‘dirty word’
critiques) are not a reason to vote Neg if they are not implicated as some reason why the outcome of the
enactment of the plan would be a bad idea. If the Aff reads an advantage with claims that are either untrue
or undesirable, it seems to me like the appropriate response is to disregard those in my calculation about the
costs and benefits of the plan, not to reject the plan as a whole. Within this framework, the distinction
between ‘critical’ and ‘policy’ arguments seems pretty silly, if it’s a response to the *plan*, it’s a relevant
consideration for the ballot no matter what type of argumentation it is derived from. If you would prefer an
alternative ‘framework’, this debate should begin as early as possible (1AC/1NC).
2) Yes, offense/defense. No, my background at MSU does not mean I take this view to an illogical extreme.
Just because I am likely to consider the “risk” of the disad, and if you have no offense arguments there will
always be a “risk”, it does not mean that the Aff cannot win defensive arguments that are so devastating to
the DA that the “risk” is inconsequential.
3) Whats up with the Neg bias these days? For some reason, a dropped advantage isn’t considered to be the
same as a dropped DA of the same magnitude. This and the proliferation of Neg short-cuts is making it
really hard on the Aff. Therefore, I feel that I will not be kind to Negative’s that blow off the Aff and just
go for a really big DA, even if it ‘turns the case’. Hint: If you’re Negative and you’re going for policy
arguments, your chances will be much better if you have a CP that solves a good chunk of the case or some
pretty good case defense going on in the 2NR. Aff Hint: “case turns the DA / makes the DA inevitable”.
Use it… Love it…
DA/CPs/CASE: Please.
THEORY:
-- Non-T Theory: Not my favorite thing to hear. This doesn’t mean that you can’t go for it – in fact, I have
often judged teams that would be much better served by going for theory than substance. But that doesn’t
mean I have to like it. If the 2AR is exclusively theory-related when either I feel that it was unnecessary or
you were getting hosed and went for it as a last resort, your points will suffer. My presumption: when
debated equally, I feel that dispositionality, PICs, international fiat, neg fiat, and topical counterplans are all
legitimate. Of questionable legitimacy, but still okay are States, multi-actor fiat, and conditionality.
Probably not okay – the usually baddies --- private fiat, object fiat, or utopian fiat. How I judge: I find that I
have a generally High Threshold for any Theory arg. Alot of it stems from the fact that I see teams getting
torched in the rest of the debate, and that shapes the way I view their extension of these arguments. If that’s
not you in your theory rebuttal, your chances are much better.
-- Topicality: I don’t think there has to be “demonstrated in-round abuse” --- a lot of examples about what
the Aff could have done or limits claims about the plans that the Aff’s interpretation allows is sufficient in
my book. Although I said above that offense/defense reigns, I think that Affs can strongly defend
reasonability – and as an offensive argument. T debates would be much better, and I would give higher
points if there is an intelligent discussion of the “biggest impact” – whether “fairness” or “education” or
“grammar” or “topic-specific education” should be privileged before other things. Its just like impact
calculus with any other argument.
KRITIK: I’m not as anti-K as I think my reputation may suggest. But, I don’t read critical literature for fun,
and there’s a decent chance that if you go for, say, the Deleuze and Guattari K, you might have to remind
me which one the molar and the molecular are. I find that Negs win a lot of K debates on tricks, either: the
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
alt solves all the case, there is some impact to the K that operates “on another level”, that the judge can vote
neg to endorse all the plan except the parts that link to the K, or that the K premise makes all of the Aff’s
impact inevitable. Aff – do not let the Neg get away with this. If they make one of these arguments, or
something similar that “Frames” the entire debate, answer it. Neg – make these arguments. I’m not a fan of
the sweeping claims that many Negs make – whether its “the methodology of the entire Aff is suspect, vote
neg on presumption” or “the gendered nature of IR makes all the harms inevitable”, because the specificity
of the Aff’s claims seems more ‘true’ to me. However, these types of arguments will almost certainly be a
death blow to the Aff if dropped, as explained above.
PERFORMANCE: I haven’t judged a lot of these debates. I’ve debated in more than I wish I had. My
biggest problem with performance is that (on the Neg) it doesn’t seem to Negate the Affirmative. While the
issue the Neg team likes to talk about may be very important, if it isn’t a reason why the Plan should not be
affirmed, it doesn’t seem relevant to the question of the ballot (for more, refer to the framework discussion
above). On the Aff, many performance teams seem to find it viscerally offensive to speak about the topic.
In this case, Framework seems like a fair response. I don’t think this necessarily has to be the case and I’d
be more than willing to listen to ‘performative’ or ‘critical’ reasons why the topic should be affirmed. The
key word here is ‘topic’. When debated equally by both sides, I think representations matter. But so does
policy. Representations inform policymaking --- but should not be the exclusive focus. This means if you
have a Reps K --- you would be advise to say that your link “turns the case”, rather than just being like
“only reps matter.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
--I think speaker points are pretty arbitrary and overly inflated. Yet, they matter a lot for clearing teams and
I’ll my best to conform my assignment of these with the community norm.
--Funny = good. Obviously. I understand that not everyone is a comedian. I don’t expect you to be there to
amuse me. I’m not going to start doling out 30s to people who are funny. But if you can do it, I’ll enjoy it.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Heaton, Sarah
CXphilosophy = General Comments: I've judged at only a few tournaments this year, and most of my
knowledge on the topic comes from the work I did at instutute this summer. I have done some case specific
work for caddo, but basically you shouldnt assume that I know the specifics of the topic.
Topicality: This is not my favorite argument, and generally I think the negative needs to illustrate sometype
of abuse in order for me to vote for it. That being said, I will vote on T if I think you have won the
argument. For affs-- absent a counter-interpretation and/or a "we meet" argument that does, the you can't
win.
DAs/Counterplans- I ere negative on counterplan theory questions-- I think dispositionality is ok, and I
think PICS are one of the best things that have ever happened to this community.
Kritiks: Dont just assume that because I'm UT that I am a Kritik hack-- in fact, these are about my least
favorite arguments. Im not familiar with the literature and I usually conclude that policy frameworks are
overall better. Besides framework, I think the alt is the most important part of this debate. I think affs let
negatives get away with too much when it comes to the alt-- most of them shouldnt be able to access the
case. I am often persuaded by Aff. uniqueness, inevitability, specificity, etc. arguments. I am especially not
a fan of discourse kritiks. This being said, I have voted for kritiks numerous times this year, especially
against performance Aff's.
Other things-- I like well articulated, agressive CX periods. CX should be about building a foundation for
your args-- not allowing the other team to explain theirs. I understand that everyone is stressed out at the
last tournament of the year (and for some their last tournament ever), but please try to have fun and
remember that debate is just a game.
If you have any questions, just ask!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Heidt, David
Disclaimer: you can still run what you like despite what’s posted below; I will do my best to evaluate all
arguments fairly regardless of my own bias, as long as you are clear, and that you impact and explain your
arguments. Along the same lines, if you’re aff against one of these counterplans, you shouldn’t think that
because you’ve quoted arguments from my judging philosophy that I will give you credit for it—you still
have to debate these arguments, defend them against the negative’s responses, and explain them well
enough to persuade me.
Most of this is just a rant about how I feel about counterplans. As far as other arguments go, I probably
have some biases but you can pretty much run what you like. As long as you clearly explain and impact
your arguments, I will try to be objective. Offense/defense is pretty much inevitable but it is possible to get
to zero offense (and reasonability is part of that). New arguments are sometimes okay if it relates to impact
assessment and the alternative is that I’m required to do it in your place. Occasionally I might think a new
assessment of someone's evidence is okay, but, there would have to be a persuasive justification of this.
While this is admittedly subjective, I try to consider the perspective of both sides and therefore usually the
new argument is unacceptable.
Rant begins:
It is increasingly hard to be affirmative over the past few years; not because negatives have gotten better
but mostly because negatives get away with more types of unfair counterplans than they used to. This is
partly because there is a weird adoration of PICs by judges and partly because affirmatives are really poor
at calling the negative out (maybe because they think judges will never vote on PICs bad arguments). I see
this as a big problem:
1. It’s really difficult to be aff because it’s too hard to predict what counterplan the negative will run. It’s
not enough to have read every article about your affirmative; you also have to think of every contrived
manipulation of fiat the negative will use or anything the negative can imagine that is supplemented by
generic process evidence.
2. It hurts the quality of education in the community as a whole. If you can get by 4 years of debate without
knowing anything about the cases you’re debating, then you’re not being well served. And why would you
do policy research when you can more easily get away with short cuts? A common, if laughable, negative
theory argument is “our abusive argument increases 2ac critical thinking”—which, ironically, is a device
deployed to shield the negative from ever having to think critically about a policy at all.
And part of the problem is that a lot of people seem to think that these strategies should be encouraged. If
the community praises someone for having a sweet new strategy, it almost always turns out to be a cheesy
contrived counterplan that is designed to do the entire aff with a trivial net benefit that rarely even makes
sense. The reason people will think it’s sweet is precisely that it is unpredictable and deprives the aff of all
offense, and the reason it’s unpredictable is that it won’t actually reflect the topic literature in a meaningful
way. I think debate is great because it encourages in-depth research of policies and fosters critical thinking
in process of shaping arguments for and against change. The over reliance on bad PICs is dramatically
moving us away from actual discussion of the merits of policy proposals and is causing negative teams to
get by on what are essentially cheap shots.
Which is not to say that all counterplans or even all PICs should be discouraged. Instead, I think that the
debate community would much better off if it limited counterplans in several ways. In the same way that
most judges have adopted standards for what constitutes legitmate permutations, I think debate would be
better if judges also adopted the following standards for counterplans:
1. You need a solvency advocate for your counterplan. What’s a solvency advocate? Different people might
have different standards, but I think it’s reasonable to have one that’s comparable to the solvency advocate
for the affirmative. Therefore, an affirmative that was mostly contrived nonsense could expect a bunch of
bad counterplans in response to it since nobody writes about the aff anyway. But most affirmatives have
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
actual advocates for them, and it’s reasonable to require the same for the counterplan. This is important for
aff predictability and it would make the quality of debates higher given that competing literature would
exist. A card on the net benefit is not the same as having a solvency advocate. Having a card saying the use
of the word “resources” instrumentalizes nature does not mean that you should be able to PIC out of the
word “resources” in the plan, unless you have evidence advocating the PIC. A card for the net benefit is a
link, not solvency evidence. This is especially important in the context of a discourse PIC that does the plan
but calls it something else. If you don’t have a solvency advocate for it then it’s highly unlikely I would
think it was fair. In 10 years of judging I’ve only seen 2 solvency advocates for a discourse PIC, everything
else has just been along the lines of “x word is bad.”
2. Agent counterplans can’t use the affirmative agent. On the college Court topic, negatives sometimes ran
counterplans to have the court distinguish instead of overrule, have the Congress pass a constitutional
amendment, and have the states implement domestic violence programs, for example. “It’s fair because all
of the actions in the counterplan test whether the Court should overrule,” they would say. While this is
technically correct, there is no world in which the affirmative could win a solvency deficit to a counterplan
like this, and there are more predictable and reasonable ways to test this. An agent counterplan isn’t a real
test of the agent if it also uses the affirmative’s agent. There is never literature that accounts for the
counterplan’s action as a whole, even if there is literature on its separate parts. The problem is that the
counterplan as a whole does not reflect real world policy processes, and no actual policymaker would be in
a position to consider a counterplan like this. While “it’s not real world” rarely has traction in a theory
debate, I think an aff can impact this argument as a basic predictability claim—that because there is no
mechanism for one policymaker to implement a multi-actor counterplan, then by definition it is not going
to be written about in actual policy literature (there are exceptions to this rule, however, and literature is the
defining standard). Judges seem to have bought into the notion that the negative needs all possible options
to test the affirmative in any way they can imagine—but this has very little academic merit if the “test”
occurs via a mechanism that would never exist in the real world. Why is the notion of “testing” the
affirmative important except to create a better policy option? I don’t believe there is another rationale, and I
don’t think it’s a better policy option if it’s not even a possible policy option.
3. Counterplan fiat can’t involve the possibility of doing the entire plan text. This is an extremely important
limit, as it would eliminate the majority of consult and condition counterplans. It would also eliminate
counterplans that compete off of normal means, and other types of unpredictable nonsense. I don’t think
it’s fair to expect the affirmative to generate offense based upon something that isn’t in the plan but instead
on some process the negative assumes the affirmative must use (such as “certainty” or “immediacy” of
implementation). It’s one thing to read evidence about the probable process of implementation that the plan
uses as a link to a disad. It’s quite another to counterplan with a different process but assert that the
affirmative has to be stuck with the probable process you described because “that’s normal means”. There
is no such thing as normal means, policies are implemented differently, and given that the plan has never
been done before, it’s unlikely that a normal means exists for it, specifically (for the record, I also feel like
the aff response to ASPEC of "you can read evidence on normal means of our plan" is stupid for the same
reason). Likewise, consult and condition counterplans aren’t competitive at all unless the aff wrote in the
plan text “this should occur immediately, unconditionally and without consultation” (or if they clarified the
plan to that effect in cross-x).
4. This can all be a voting issue. I didn’t used to think this, but now I think that an argument can be made
why abusive counterplans are voting issues rather than reasons to reject the argument, independent from
conditionality-based warrants. In general in front of me, any voting issue needs to be explained as a reason
to reject the team and not the argument (otherwise I’ll treat it as a reason to reject the argument even if the
other team drops it). And just saying “reject the team—fairness and education” won’t get you anywhere
since you haven’t explained why those impacts require rejecting the team. On the other hand, I could be
persuaded that bad practices require punishment, or the time investment in theory requires more than
rejecting the argument, or that the ballot could deter the use of a particularly destructive CP at least in front
of me in future debates, etc. None of these reasons are great but it's certainly possible I'd vote on them
depending on how it was debated.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Heidt, Jenny
Director of Debate
The Westminster Schools
1. How many rounds have you judged on the topic? 40-50
2. Any predispositions on topicality that you think students debating in front of you should keep in mind?
Do you tend to vote on T frequently/infrequently?
I will vote on T if the interpretation is well developed and predictable (not arbitrarily designed to exclude
the aff). Do what you need to but your 1NC will be more impressive if it is free of throw-aways. ASPEC is
potentially a voter. OSPEC is ugly. Ultimately, I will be flow oriented so just do your best.
3. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating kritiks?
Neg on the K: I do not mind them. You are better off if the K turns the case or has a clear DA to the case
than if there is some decision rule argument like “no value to life.” Pulling links from the 1AC, or giving
example of how the K is the cause of the harms, or explaining how it would turn the aff in real world terms
also helps. In other words, try to adapt the K to the aff.
Aff on the K: I have seen a handful of teams massively invest in framework this year and lose because they
drop so much else or forget to impact framework very well. Theory can be OK but DAs to the alternative
and solvency arguments are usually stronger.
Affs running the K: You need to have a topical plan. And, you need to be straight up when answering CX
questions re: your framework. “Do state bad arguments link to your aff?” “Would causing a nuclear war
theoretically outweigh your aff?” “Are politics DAs relevant?” You cannot avoid these questions and then
make tons of no link arguments in the 2AC without your speaker points taking a big hit and me giving the
neg substantial leeway to characterize your aff however they like. The bottom line is that you can have
critical advantages but you need to defend that world view.
4. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating counterplans? What about theory issues relating to
counterplans such as the legitimacy of conditionality – any predispositions or other thoughts?
No leanings on dispositionality or conditionality. Conditioning, consult, utopian CPs (anarchy etc), or CPs
that PIC out of things not in the plan (such as the “immediacy” of the plan) are very vulnerable to theory.
5. Besides the need for clarity, do you have any speed, stylistic or other miscellaneous comments? What is
your policy about reading evidence after a debate?
Be professional. No swearing, no rudeness, do not start out speeches by saying that you are killing the other
team, etc. CX: it is a speech—it should be 3 minutes long (no “I’ll take prep for an extra question”). Also,
stand up, face me, and ask questions after you get the ev sorted out. Intervene in a partner’s CX if you have
to but with the same caution you would have if interrupting your partner during any other speech. I will
read evidence afterwards if I need to. Qualifications are a big deal if you bring up the issue. Positions
entirely written by quacks (wipeout comes to mind) can be beaten without counter-evidence if the debaters
make smart analytics. Warrants also matter so make comparisons. Card clipping is serious cheating and I
will intervene and vote against you if I am sure that you were clipping.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Herndon, James
Affiliation = Chattahoochee
School Strikes = Chattahoochee
JUDGE PHILOSOPHY –
I always hate writing these things because I think that they often go unread, those who read them give them
too much credit, or they are totally ignored after being read. I think these judge philosophies should be used
to shape how you impact arguments in the round and make choices in the 2nr/2ar – NOT in shaping
everything you do in the round.
ARGUMENT CHOICE
My debaters think that I am a K hack. The college teams I coached for think that I hate the K. I ultimately
think that I am a pretty fair judge that falls somewhere in the middle. I’d probably PREFER a politics throw
down. However, I enjoy a discussion of postcolonialism and ontology as much as the next person. I think
you should read whatever you want. Being good on an argument I dislike is better than being bad on an
argument I like.
TOPICALITY
I’m probably an aff hack. I don’t think topicality debates are impacted well by either sides – I generally
tend to defer to the aff in those instances. If they are blatantly NOT TOPICAL you should go for it – but
my threshold is high.
IMPACT CALCULUS
I tend to think that this is either done poorly or not done at all in 99% of the time. However, it is usually
how I make decision in rounds. Arguments about why time frame is the most important mode of evaluating
a debate are important. Arguments about why you control time frame, magnitude, and probability are
useless without warrants. I believe I tend to overly rely on the impact comparisons when making decisions.
THEORY
I like a good theory debate – I probably lean negative. I enjoy a well researched, highly specific, and
theoretically illegitimate strategies. If can PIC out of a small aspect of the aff that is HIGHLY SPECIFIC
and read four net benefits then I’m going to love that. I will being to lean towards the aff on theory when
your strategies are generic. So, I guess what I’m saying is, ‘the more work you do, the more abusive you
get to be.’
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Hill, Luke
Chattahoochee
Constraints- GBN, Oak Park River Forest, Northwestern University
YEARS OF COACHING 6
My main preference is that people debate about what they think is important, they have fun, and are
courteous to other members of the community. I think that impact and link comparison is very important
and probably have the most to do with my final decision in a round. Whoever articulates the most probable
significant harms not necessarily the largest usually wins the round. It is very important that rebutallists
crystallize these scenarios and do not leave me to my own devices after the round.
Theory: I generally try to come into rounds with an open mind about paradigm. That being said if no one
in the debate directs me how to evaluate the round I usually default to a policy making paradigm since it
would seem the most predictable way to evaluate the desirableness of the topic. Topicality I generally err
Aff, but all is up to debate. Provide a case list and vision of the topic under your interpretation. Do not
resort to limits outweigh. New cases, research and education are probably good things.
Counterplans: I like competitive literature based counterplans. Not a big fan of consult countrplans, see
preference for competition and specific literature. Counterplan abusiveness usually justifies perm
abusiveness. I don’t vote on theory often. You should show how the unique set of circumstances of the
negatives arguments made it highly unlikely for the Aff to win using traditional resources.
Kritiks: I try to be open to all styles of debate. My main desire is to hear specific link articulation by the
negative and a reason why the impact should outweigh or turn the case. From the Aff a discussion of the
importance of the affirmative plan or action and how those impacts outweigh or are not solved by the
alternative. Links of omission and non-unique disads are not often winners for me. Both sides should
explain their arguments in these rounds, especially if the subject matter is beyond traditional Foucault and
Cap K’s. Framework debates tend to be poor and not much more than a reason for me to look at/or not look
at the impacts of the aff case.
I will read evidence after a round when directed to by the final speakers, by argument type and author, in
order to resolve contested points in the round. Teams that explain how evidence relates to the arguments in
the round will be rewarded
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Holladay, Kathy
Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas
Slow on Tag… need synopsis, author and the date
Warrant – fast… please say "and" or "next" when moving to the next piece of evidence
Road Map after the 1 AC
Counter plans are ok
Kritiks are ok
Topicality – ok but make sure it is structured correctly
Disadvantages - ok but make sure it is structured correctly
Impact analysis needed
Do not just read evidence… be able to explain it
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Holland, Erik
Years in the activity: 12
Coaching for: Head Royce, Stanford University
Rounds on this topic: not many yet - don't make assumptions about what I "should" know
I have historically been of a very critical background, but I have found myself thrust into quite a few
straight up debates this year on both the high school and college level and, to be honest, I haven’t minded at
all.
That being said, my personal preference still leans towards critical argumentation, although I would much
rather see a good disad and case debate than some Zizek mess. It seems that, too often, people assume that
because I did crazy things as a debater that I will automatically love whatever crazy thing you want to do.
While I certainly won’t vote against you based on your argument or stylistic choice alone I do still have
standards for explanation and am not afraid to vote against you if I can’t explain your argument to the other
team at the end of the debate (a concept that was difficult for me to understand as a debater but makes
much more sense as a judge – sorry Frap). If you’re doing something tricky or reading some complex lit,
fine, but you need to SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN your argument in a way that does not simply recycle
the jargon within your evidence. I reward creativity and wit, and I truly believe that it is important for
debaters to continually push the activity to its limit whenever possible, but don’t pursue this for the sole
purpose of gaining my ballot. The easiest way to win my ballot is to be the best debaters in the room. This
means that you should always choose the argumentation that you are most comfortable with instead of
trying to adapt your argument choice to appease me. Lastly, I do not often read evidence unless there is an
issue of contestation regarding evidence read. I feel it is the job of the debaters to explain the warrants in
their evidence in a sufficient manner that does not require me calling for cards. I have also had problems in
the past with concerns over my flowing. Let me be clear about this: I will flow anything that I feel is a
(potentially) relevant argument in the debate. If you are saying something that I don’t feel gets you
anywhere in the debate then I may not write it down. My process of deciding debates occurs primarily as
the debate evolves from speech to speech and I get a sense by the last two rebuttals of the arguments that
seem key to me at the end. If, during the last rebuttals, you see me not flowing it is most likely because I
don’t find your arguments relevant to how I will decide the debate. Either that or I don’t really understand
what your argument is and I have stopped flowing to devote my full attention towards grasping your
argument. Most importantly, have fun and don’t take yourself too seriously. After all, its just debate. And
now, a few specifics:
Topicality:
I consider myself a pretty decent T judge and these are some of the few debates that I usually read
something (evidence, the plan, the 1nc violation) after the end of the debate. I tend to let the debaters work
out how I should evaluate T, whether it be in-round abuse, competing interps etc. Generally I have a slight
aff bias on T if the debate is really close, although I am persuaded by more nuanced interpretations or
tricky hidden arguments in the standards debate etc.
Disads:
Yeah. Sure.
Counterplans:
Probably a good thing, but the more specific to the aff the better. Too many debates have evolved into
crappy agent CP’s with (usually) no specific solvency evidence. Whatever happened to counterplaning out
an advantage and straight turning the other one? Or PICing out of a key component of the plan with a
specific net benefit?
Critiques:
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
This is discussed above. Just remember, specificity and explanation are the two most important things.
There’s not much I like more than a good critique debate but not much I like less than a bad one. Good
examples that reference the plan or at least the world we live in would be nice. That and pop culture
references that are applicable will most likely get you extra speaker points.
Theory:
I have a very quick trigger on conceded theory with clearly labeled voting issues. Making the decision
easier for me should always be your goal. However, I have a much higher threshold for voting on answered
theory arguments. I have a particular negative bias on most theory with, perhaps, the exception of
conditionality and/or multiple conditional advocacies. I just don’t really see why the negative cannot at
least give the aff a strategic option for the 2ac (that they almost never take anyway).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Huston, David
Affiliation = Colleyville Heritage HS
Previous Affiliations: Highland Park High School, Dallas; Roosevelt HS, DM; In the Dark Ages, Dowling
Catholic, West Des Moines; Sioux City East HS
THEORY:
I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must
demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are
best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the
affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are
legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan.
Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that
you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when
teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally,
then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What
stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the
2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:
I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get bogged down in the line by
line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15
seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the
beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does.
Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the
topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES:
True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I don’t
profess to understand them all at times. I am also wrestling with the “fiat is illusory” argument as well. If
the round itself is nothing more than a competitive exercise, then I’m not sure we are spending our time
wisely. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that
position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping,
then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will
most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the
implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what
then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt
the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless
you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric,
thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so?
EVIDENCE:
I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will
most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found
in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as
hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin
with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do
evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not?
Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will
give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one
partner does not dominate the discussion. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me
to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous
(which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I
was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this
way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Iftimie, Alex
Harker ‘03
University of Southern California ‘07
I’m a senior and first round debater for the University of Southern California. I’ve judged four years of
high school debate, including about 30 rounds on the National Service topic.
To the best of my abilities, I’ll try to decide each round based on the merits of the arguments in the round.
I’d say in every case in which you have me as a judge, you are better off going for what you are good at
rather than trying to appease what you perceive to be my biases. Nevertheless, here are some of the things I
think about debate that I may be more persuaded by:
- If you don’t read a plan or are planning to talk about something other than the topic, I’m probably not the
best judge for you. I generally think affs must defend a topical advocacy statement, and I also tend to think
that topicality is a voting issue.
- I see debate as a game. I don’t much care for arguments that tell me I’m going to change the world with
my ballot. These types of kritik alternatives seem to happen less and less, though I still often hear that fiat
is illusory and the plan never happens. I generally tend to think those are interesting, but irrelevant FYIs.
- I still end up voting negative for the kritik a ton. I usually evaluate these debate almost identically to the
way I would evaluate a CP+Net Benefit debate; I will compare the desirability of the plan/perm versus the
desirability of the alternative. Most often, the aff ends up conceding things like the alternative solves the
harms, or that the K turns the aff and has some big external extinction or no value to life impact. Thinking
of a kritik debate in the same was as a CP/NB debate will most likely put us on the same page.
- Vague K alternatives suck. More affs should spend time indicting the alt's ability to solve the aff or
anything else for that matter. I generally dislike it when alts change from "reject the aff" to "global peace,
love and the soul train" in the block. I think people going for Ks are in better shape if they carefully word
an alternative text, as they would with a CP text.
- I reward two things with speaker points: (2) clarity/specificity of explanation and (2) strategy. I tend to get
hyped up for debates with intricate distinctions and well thought out strategies. These are the debates where
29s get thrown out.
- I’ve become increasingly less willing to vote on cheap shots. I think “reject the argument, not the team” is
enough in almost any situation—often, even if the 1AR has dropped the theory argument. Don’t take this to
mean I won’t vote for theory. I tend to vote on theory arguments where the aff or the neg has explained
why something the other team has done sidesteps an important debate or takes away from important
literature-based ground. In all cases, make sure to impact the theory arguments in terms of what ground or
education you have lost and what kind of arguments would exist in both worlds.
- I evaluate CPs in terms of net benefits. Affirmatives often loose CP debates in front of me because they
lack any offense. While I keep telling myself I'd be willing to vote on absolute defense, I have YET to do it.
Defense against the net benefit is almost always not enough if the counterplan solves the entirety of the
case. If the CP makes it impossible for you to generate offense, that’s probably a reason to go for theory.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Jaswa, Rahul
Like just about every other judge in this community, I try to be as objective as possible. But I think that
debate is obviously a game of persuasion, and some arguments are naturally more persuasive than others-in my mind, the burden of proof is higher to prove that tyranny, nuclear war, etc. are good (these are
extreme examples, you should use this standard for determining how to extend all different types of
arguments in front of me). So, if you call that subjectivity, then by all means i'm subjective and you should
debate accordingly. That being said, i've gone for both tyranny and nuclear war good a handful of times, so
don't hesitate to run it back if this is your strategy--i'll give you a fair decision.
In my career, I have gone for every possible style of argument--stupid or otherwise. Nowadays, I tend to go
for critique arguments more than anything else, but that is more a representation of my partner's ideological
preferences than anything else. That being said, don't hesitate to roll out your counterplans, disads,
topicality, etc.--I am well rehearsed in these types of debates and enjoy watching them develop. (For
example, I used to write CAL's politics files for the first semester of this year.)
One word of advice, and this applies to every judge I know: if you don't outline the decision calculus for
me or any other judge, the judge is forced to evaluate the debate the way they think they should, which
might not be how you see it. Explicitly define the parameters of my decisionmaking process, and your
chances of winning will go up dramatically. That being said, absent contestation (and this is critical,
because I think anything is up for debate), I will probably defer to debate of competing interpretations (so
offer a competing framework like reasonability, aff teams!), the aff gets their advantages against the
alternative (but still has to win that those outweigh, aren't solved by the alternative, etc.), risk calculus, etc.
A couple quick disclaimers: evidence reading is subjective. Everyone reads things in different ways and
everyone has different abilities to interpret dense, highly technical, or any other card. Debaters have a role
in how judges read evidence--indict the other teams evidence and I will probably read their evidence with
less enthusiasm/openness. Indict qualifications and I will give their evidence less credibility when I read it
(assuming you win your qualifications indicts). Indict the types of studies their evidence uses, recency, etc.
and you will find yourself in a uniquely good position when it comes time for me to compare evidence.
I'm sympathetic to defense--if the neg concedes defense that should take out their whole DA, then I have no
problem saying they get 0% risk (ie if neg concedes plan is covert, no link, I think neg gets 0% risk of DA;
if neg concedes "low probability of nuclear war," I think they probably just get a small risk of their DA).
Specifically, these are the ideological lines I generally follow:
K's--I don't think framework necessarily wins the aff the debate--make your interpretation clear: do they
not get an alternative, just links to the plan, aff gets their advantages... be clear about what the function of
your arguments are. Just because I like critical arguments does not mean that I am sympathetic to overly
generic and meaningless arguments. I don't assume that critiques are voting issues--make clear why your
alternative is preferable to the plan or permutation or why justifying their assumptions is a prior question.
That being said, just because your evidence is generic, that doesn't mean your link explanations have to be.
The great thing about critique debate is that it re-introduces a higher level of debater explanation--articulate
clear, specific links with specific impact possibilities/explanations and it will be hard for you to lose to a
permutation or link turn. Mostly, I just want you all to debate like what you're saying has a point that
should implicate my decision process.
I am of the opinion that most judges who say that critique teams use too many "buzzwords" are people who
don't understand philosophy well enough. This has a limit--if you're a postmodern word generator, I will
think you are incompetent and give your arguments little credit (if I can even decipher them). But, if you
skillfully and aptly use philosophical language like epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, existentialism,
etc. I will know what you are talking about and you will not need to over-explain this in "common
everyday language."
CP's/DA's/Case--Love it. I lean negative on arguments like conditionality, pics, etc., but have won many
rounds and will vote on the aff side of these arguments if they are won. This means that you cannot drop
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
defensive arguments--I think that the onus is on the aff to decisively prove why the negatives introduction
of a counterplan, etc. into the debate make it strategically unfair/undebatable for the aff. That being said, I
do not think the negative needs to win "net offense" to win a theory debate--they just need to win that it
was "fair or educational enough."
This is an ideological preference that I always disagreed with when I was debating in high school; now that
i'm in college my threshold for theory debates has become substantially higher; a 2 minute 2AR on
conditionality bad probably isn't sufficient unless the 2NR really drops the ball.
Topicality--obviously as a judge I don't like watching stupid and contrived topicality debates, but I
understand the strategic utility of a-spec (time tradeoff with the 2AC), t-substantially is without material
qualifications (I won dozens of rounds on this argument my senior year of high school, including big bid
rounds, break rounds, etc.), and the vast array of other stupid arguments. I evaluate topicality somewhere in
the middle between persuasiveness and technically: make clear the types of ground you lose and why it's
important, what aff's they allow and why they're bad, and then exploit concessions like jurisdiction takes
out reasonability, overlimiting outweighs underlimits, etc. and I will be right there with you. That being
said, I think it is hard to be aff in topicality debates; if you don't have a good counter interpretation, it is
your responsibility to be damn persuasive on the reasonability debate (which I am quite sympathetic too if
argued correctly). Don't let the neg get away with making silly arguments and you'll be fine.
One disclaimer--if the 2NC/1NR drops c/i--only our case is topical, you are not guaranteed to win. Unless
the neg has said that absolutely limited topic is best, depth o/w breadth, you will have a hard time beating
2NR arguments about why that leads to bad, narrow education in my mind. You might win, but I would not
count on it unless it is screwed up in a significant way.
New arguments in the 2NR/2AR--I don't have a super black and white outlook on this; I think most
arguments in the last rebuttal are questionably new and questionably related to arguments in past speeches.
2NR should tell me to protect them, and the 2AR should explain why arguments which seem intuitively
new are not, or demonstrate how they are related or where on the flow they were in prior speeches. I'm a
good flow when i'm judging debates, and you will probably not be able to trick me into thinking arguments
were made which weren't, so don't count on trickery (unless that's your thing, you need it, and you're good
at it, in which case go right ahead).
"Performance teams"--i'm cool with it, I find myself to be a very objective judge when it comes to
evaluating framework debates like these. Neg--just because you think framework = genocide is a bad
argument, doesn't mean you should disregard it. These arguments are fair game just as are criticisms of
topicality. I find claims like "only learning instrumental policy debate brackets discussions into violent
ones--we become a debate community conditioned into thinking that africa needs to be disciplined and
bombed" to be more persuasive than some others.
To close, most importantly, debates, even at the TOC, are meant to be fun. Competition is great--go in their
with a cutthroat attitude (but don't cross the line), embarrass your opponents in cross-x, make funny jokes,
and you'll be on your way to excellent speaker points (and credibility with your arguments). Argue with me
after the debate if you want, but i'm not going to change my decision (or speaker points, unless you insult
me). Debate hard, make good arguments, and have a good time.
I really like debate, and more than others, I like to judge it. If I put a longer-than-usual amount of time into
my decision this should not frustrate you; I can recognize a crush just as easily as anybody else, but I want
to be careful--especially at the TOC (I am rarely the last person to decide on a panel, but equally rarely the
first).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Johnson, blake
A Preface: I really hate doing these things. Contrary to popular belief, Im not really an ideologue (except
about fried okra and elliott smith -- i love both of these and distrust those who do not). Feel free to play
debate however you'd like, I'll rarely interfere.
Also, I try my best to resolve every debate as I believe David Heidt would.
For those of you who remain unsatisfied:
Topicality: People usually mention this first because its presumed to be an "above the gameboard" issue.
Im sympathetic to the claim that debate cant progress absent agreed upon terms, but I dont think that T
functions in a way unlike any other argument. It is just as susceptible to decent aff args (yes, I believe that
the aff can conceivably win that T is bad) which diffuse it as a no risk option for the neg. To be perfectly
honest, Im not extremely eager to hear generic T debates (especially at this point in the year) when other
substantive debates are available. That said, I understand the strategic purpose of T and advise negative
teams to be as specific as possible in explaining their interpretation (what it makes the topic look like), the
affs deviation from it, and why thats bad (what it means for negative debatability.) Im not inclined to
believe that the negative is deserving of any particular "kind" of ground, especially in light of a decent Aff
critique, so I suppose arguments oriented around topical limits are your best bet.
The Critique: Poorly debated critiques are probably the most torturous thing I can imagine enduring. On the
other hand, well debated critiques are among the most exciting. The difference between these is usually a
specific link (though well debated methodological or epistemological critiques -- while perhpas generic -can definitely interest me), a realistic appraisal of the impact with a calculus for evaluation that favors the
negative, and a robust defense of the alternative (which should not be taken to mean that it must always
"solve" the aff. it could just as easily be a preferable way of thinking about/approaching the world). Plan
specific links obviously go a greater distance toward defeating the permutation than do simple "you used a
word we dont appreciate" or "suggested that the state might act" arguments. Defeating the K for the aff can
be as simple as complicating the link and problematizing the alt (please do talk about the alt). Ask simple
questions and make smart arguments. You needn't be a Heidegger scholar to explain to me why Dillon's
reflections on Antigone should not be cause for my ignoring impending nuclear war.
Performance: Im not sure what this means. I find that teams that are labeled "performative" are still making
arguments. I evaluate those, but by all means perform well.
CP/DA: Im rarely excited about another Lopez throw down. Counterplans and DAs are really fun debate
when specific to the affirmative and well developed. Ridiculous PICs with marginal (typically nonsensical)
net-benefits annoy me and degrade debate. This is not to say that I wont vote for them but that I wish AFFs
would be more human and less debater in responding to them. Problematize the link story -- Im
sympathetic to strong defensive arguments and politics DAs are almost always dumb. Talk about the
competitiveness of the CP -- if all 50 state courts overruling a supreme court decision wont crush its
legitimacy SURELY the supreme court agreeing with them wont (you know who you are). These things
demonstrate to me why PICS are bad better than do PICS bad args.
A few asides:
I dont take myself very seriously and neither should you. Humor is always more engaging than hostility. I
love to reward funny debate, even if I am, but preferably if anyone I know is, the butt of the joke.
Also, I have perhaps a high threshold for arguments that are obviously stupid. I am confident that you can
discern these as well as I can but will disclose that I count among them many theory args like "must define
all words" or "aff choice."
Cross-ex should be the most exciting part of a debate, please dont bore me by asking the aff to explain their
plan in their own words.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
You do not, or should not, have an "underview."
And finally, my name is blake. I am inclined to ignore or revolt against all requests made to or demands
made of "Judge."
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Johnson, Brooks
I debated two years at Flower Mound High School in Texas. I debated at Baylor University for 4 years and
went to the NDT. I am now the Assistant Director of Debate of Western Kentucky University.
Do what you do best, and I will do my best to remain neutral. Play the debate game however you wish. If
you have any specific questions, I am more than willing to answer questions before the round.
That said...
I have judged over 100 rounds on the Africa topic. I am very familiar with the literature.
I prefer the debate to be one about the desirability of the plan versus a competitive policy option,
alternative, or the status quo. I will pretty much default to this framework if another one is not introduced in
the debate. Plan focus is important. Links and impacts to positions should be a reason to reject the plan, not
just one warrant the Aff used to support the plan. However, if you have an alternative framework, or if you
are an Aff that doesn't have a plan, I am willing to vote for your argument (given you win the debate of
course).
Topicality: These are not my favorite debates, but a really smart T violation can be interesting to judge. I
don't think "in round abuse" needs to be proven; competing interpretations is a persuasive framework to
me, especially when the Neg provides examples of what the AFF would justify. HOWEVER, I am very
sympathetic to reasonability and if the debate is very close or the T violation is contrived, I am likely to
default AFF.
A good k debate for me involves specific links, some impacts, and an alternative. Alternatives are best if
you articulate what my role as a judge is and how that role relates to the ballot. They’re even better if you
can solve the case.
Speed? As long as you are clear, you can go as fast as you want. Blitzing through a T violation or a theory
shell will only hurt you.
Speaker points? I try and keep myself close to the mainstream on these. I shouldn't go below a 25 unless
you cheat, and if you want a 29.5-30 you better be amazing.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Jones, Mike
University of Southern California
Affiliation: Notre Dame
School Restrictions: Highland High School (Salt Lake City, Utah), Edgemont (New York)
Rounds Judged on the Topic: About 10.
I think that debate is, first and foremost, a competitive activity. In order to make the game fair, it seems
obvious to me that the judges job should be to evaluate arguments as debaters present them and to intervene
as little as possible.
Dropped arguments are assumed to be truthful arguments for the purpose of the debate round. This comes
with a caveat – if you are speaking incoherently or cannot logically present an argument to me I will ignore
it. For example: “Purple is a voting issue” does not pass the coherency test.
I think a great overview can be presented as “If you vote aff, then you are voting for this. If you vote neg,
you are voting for this.” This can be applied to every single argument you make.
Because I think of debate as a game, it is probably not smart to use debate as a source for activism in front
of me. I begin debate rounds assuming that I am voting to endorse a world where an example of the
resolution is or is not enacted. I typically think most "critical arguments" do not pass a burden of rejoinder;
although this obviously up to debate.
One thing that will be important if you want to go for critical arguments is to treat me like I am stupid. I
will not be offended. I do not have a formal understanding on Agambans’ conceptions of metaphysics, the
Lacanian trajectory of desire, or the Aristotelian contradiction. Explaining to me what certain words and
lines in your evidence mean will help me vote for you. Otherwise, you risk me intervening because I
simply had no idea what you were talking about and felt that you did not meet the coherency burden
outlined above.
Speech Time
If you are going to be repetitive, just sit down. I don’t really care if you don’t use all your speech time. If
you can say everything you have to say in less then the allotted speech time, I will attribute it to you being
extremely efficient. That seems to be good, and not bad.
Cross-Examination: I write down as much as possible of what you say in cross-examination, and consider it
to be binding.
Speaker Points:
30 – Perfect.
29.5 – Either a perfect speech and a small mistake in cross-examination, OR, perfect in cross-examination
and very good speeches.
29 – Top Speaker Material. If I think you are the best debater at the tournament then this is reserved for
you. Unless you, for some reason or another, get one of the above.
28.5 – Speaker Award Deserving for any given tournament.
28 – Better than average. Probably deserve to be in elimination rounds
27.5 – Average
27 – Slightly below average. Reserved mostly for people who are either average speakers but make stupid
arguments, or people who make average arguments but have speaking issues.
26.5 and down– Well, you can figure it out.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Jordan. Shunta
Affiliation = Pace Academy
Philosophy = I am a former high school and NDT debater. I have been in the activity for 18 years. It has
been interesting seeing the evolution of debate in those years.
As a judge, I am always willing to pull the trigger on topicality. However, teams lose credibility with 15second blip answers with no explanation as to why their interpretations are comparably better. I tend to
believe topicality is about competing interpretations. As a result, I tend to like argumentation that persuades
me of such. I hate whiny abuse standards and independent voters on topicality. Don’t waste my time with
these arguments.
As for critiques, I’m not highly fond of them. No one seems to slow down and explain the implications of
such arguments in a debate round. I’ve voted for a critique 7 times in my life. I believe that a critique must
link as well as the alternative must do something. Critiques that ask me to just reject the Aff will probably
get you a loss. However, I am more willing this year to listen to and perhaps vote on a critique. These
arguments are germane to this year’s topic; however, this does not mean run a critique in front of me every
time I judge you. Be subjective!
Most of the theory goo is whiny as well. Devote your time to more substantive arguments rather than
focusing on whether dispositionality or conditionality is good/bad. That being said – if a team fails to
adequately address these issues in the debate, (ex. 1AR spends 3 min on theory; 2NR spends 30 sec on it,
and the 2AR goes for theory), they will probably be on the losing end.
In summary, I prefer straight up debates: counterplans, disads (case-specific ones would be great),
topicality, and case. I am willing to consider theoretical implications (critiques) as well if need be.
Teams stand the best chance of winning my ballot when the rebuttals include some type of decision
calculus of the round. Always compare your arguments and evidence to your opponents. Tell me what you
are winning versus what your opponents are winning. I hate reading a ton of evidence at the end of rounds.
Don’t give me any reason to interject myself in a round or draw my own conclusions from a piece of
evidence. Leave it in my hands, and you might not like the results.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Joseph, James
I have about six years of experience in this activity. I debated for four years in high school, attending the
TOC once, and I currently debate for Gonzaga University.
For the Africa topic specifically – I have worked at summer camps and currently coach a team in Spokane.
I have done research but there are still probably specific terms and arguments that I am not completely
familiar with because I have not judged a lot on the nation circuit. In other words, if you are reading a new
AFF or some complex argument, go slow and spend more time explaining yourself, not just cards (that
should go without saying but sometimes it is necessary to remind people)
Topicality – two levels to this debate. First is the factual level. This involves topicality questions like “is
this country is SSA” or “is plan a form of aid.” Usually, the AFF will win these questions easily with a card
which means the T debate comes down to the second level, the standards. I believe there are two impacts to
all theory arguments: fairness and education. You standards should be the links into these impacts. For the
negative, having a list of the case you allow and the cases the AFF allows is key. Having a topical version
of the AFF that fits under your interpretation is also very helpful. The AFF should only go for reasonability
when they are going all in on the “we meet” arg. I do not discourage these debates. They can be very
interesting and good debates.
Counter-plan in general – always a good thing. I believe every 1nc should have one unless there is some
strategic reason to not have one. Textually or functionally competition can be debated out. Personally, I
think functional competition is enough.
Process CP – the hardest thing for these CP is proving competition. Basically, if the AFF has “normal
means” in their plan text and the negative has a card proving what that means, then the CP is good.
Otherwise don’t do it.
Consult CP – not a fan but still willing to listen to them. If you have good genuine consultation cards and
can beat the perm. If you are AFF, your best bet is answering the net benefit directly or going all in on a
perm, not generic theory. Remember – OFFENSE
PICS – these are the best CP’s. Don’t think if you are AFF you will win textually competition. If the NEG
has a card saying the AFF’s aid includes “X” and “X” is bad, you better have answer other than theory. For
this year’s topic, the AFF has to have an answer to the country PIC if they give it to all of SSA.
Word PICS – same as PICS, these CPs are awesome. But I do have a higher standard for the evidence on
this question. You have to prove there is some functionally difference. This can be something as simple as
a reps shape reality card or the legal interpretation of one word is better than another. Make sure your
evidence is specific to the use of the actually word, not just the actually concept (ie, there is a difference
between saying reps of Africa are bad versus saying the word Africa is bad)
Conditions CP – these are fine. The biggest problem is the say yes evidence. If you are AFF don’t be afraid
of just saying there say yes evidence is out of context and then come up with a warranted analytic to win
the say no debate.
Multiple actor CPs – not a fan. AFF’s should go for theory. I will say this, the UN security council, NATO,
EU, and other international agencies are not multiple actors in my view.
K’s in general – I am open to these arguments as well. I don’t think it requires a one off strategy to win it.
The most important thing that I think gets mis-handled the most is framework. The negative MUST tell me
my role in the round. Otherwise I default to a policy maker and will probably view the K as a non-unique
DA with a utopia CP text. If you are good enough, an alternative is not necessary but you have to prove the
case turn. For the AFF, make sure your win framework enough to prove why you access your case (go for
the middle ground, not the “exclude K’s” framework). Your best bet on winning is either the perm or the
impact turn. Going for link turns are helpful when combined with the perm. Otherwise, they will probably
win a risk of their link, and they have an alternative that solves. Remember, I have a general idea of most of
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
the K’s that are read but I require a lot more explanation still. I would rather you talked to me, not read
cards at me.
Reps K’s – AFF, you gotta defend them. Make sure you are not just reading realism good cards but specific
answer the K. Sometimes, explanation can be more useful than another card.
Psychoanalysis K’s – the framework on these debates is tricky. The negative has to be VERY clear on how
the impacts operate. I am not a fan of this but the AFF still has to answer it. Personal, this stuff is probably
non-falsifiable.
Alternatives – this is the weakest part of the K. I believe there should be some form of a text to the
alternative and it should be clearly explained. AFF’s should exploit this part of the K. Be warned, I am
more open to floating PICS than most judges. If the NEG tries to wiggle out of explaining the K in the CX,
expect lower speaker points and a link into the theory argument “vague alt.”
DA’s in general – also fun, also good. You can never have too many. For me, the link is the MOST
important element of the DA. It is important to have reasons why the DA turns the case or outweighs the
case and start this in the block. Be warned negative, there are a lot of bad DA’s out there and I will assign
zero percent risk to an argument.
Politics – please, don’t run elections. I will be willing to vote on its too far away and there is no way to
predict. There are some alright political capital DAs out there, use one of those.
Not normal impact DAs – by this, I refer to DA’s that have moral obligation claims, or impacts like Petro
74. I will vote but winning the impact calculus is probably just as important if not more important than the
link debate.
Conditionality – generally I think it’s good but with limits. This is going to seem arbitrary but I think the
negative gets three worlds: the Status Quo, and then two other alternatives (can be either CP or K
alternative). If the NEG goes beyond this, the AFF should not be afraid to go for theory. Dispo is silly, and
the same as conditionality.
Contradictions – my way of evaluating if two arguments contradict is if the AFF can concede two
arguments in the 2ac and cross apply one DA to the other. If a DA links to conditional CP, it is not a
contradiction.
Rebuttals – this is where debates are won and lost. Big picture matters. I don’t care if it is at the top, or the
bottom, or somewhere in the middle, but there has to be a comparison of all the impacts flying around in
the debate. “Even if” statements win rounds, especially when dropped. I will protect the 2nr, so all your
shady 2ars should make sure that there is a direct connection to the 1ar arguments. Best way to do this, if
you think that there is a risk of an argument being new, justify it in the 2ar. The argument of the card is
more important than the name of the author. Extending “Jones 02” is not an argument.
Pet peeves – Its politics, not “tics.” It’s conditionality, not “condo.” Just had to say that.
Any questions, just ask
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Kaczmarek, Sheryl
Newburgh Free Academy
Policy Philosophy
I have been judging and coaching policy debate for more than 25 years. I remember debate
before counterplans and before kritiks. I remember life without politics disads, but I have also
written kritiks and counterplans, and, heaven help me, even politics disads. I am probably as
open-minded about debate arguments as anyone you'll ever be judged by, other than the fact that
I don't much like cursing in rounds and would prefer that both teams offer actual ARGUMENTS
and clash with the arguments offered by the opposition (performance can be a part of an
argument, just to clarify). I flow on a laptop and can get down lines from cards in addition to tags,
assuming the people reading the cards are capable of articulation. If I can't understand it, I will
neither flow it nor read it after the round, and that is a problem because I take the flow very
seriously. I judge 70-80 policy rounds a year (sometimes more), both on the circuit and in various
regions. These days, I am Newburgh's only coach so I have been very much involved in the
arguments we run and have faced, and I still enjoy few things more than a case specific research
assignment which yields a key card. Don't let the fact that my 50th birthday is/was July 4, 2008
fool you. I am not necessarily your mom's judge, unless you want me to be.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Keenan, Dylan
Westminster Schools
Two general tips:
1. Smart analytical arguments are really important. You don’t need evidence for an argument and having
evidence doesn’t mean you have made an argument, and certainly not a good argument. Things like
pointing out all the alternate causes to an advantage harm or the missing internal links or absurdity of a DA
impact can be devastating but are mostly underutilized
2. Impact calculus is really important, especially in the final two rebuttals. Just doing the standard song and
dance about how you have a bigger, faster, more probable impact probably won’t cut it in close debates.
You probably aren’t winning every frame of impact comparison so you should emphasize the one you are
winning and why I should prioritize that particular frame (timeframe, magnitude, whatever…) and probably
why you turn their impacts
Topicality: I’ll vote on it. I think a narrow topic is probably good provided there is a reasonable amount of
affirmative flexibility and (this is important) the affirmative has enough room to write a plan that actually
solves. I think competing interpretations is probably a good framework but can be persuaded otherwise
Critiques: Not really my thing. I think most critiques I’ve heard are vacuous and false generalizations that
lack specificity of application and use fancy language to dress up “Hitler wore pants…” style reasoning that
wouldn’t make it past the third grade. I’ll try to be objective and I actually do vote on these arguments
fairly often but I will give the aff some leeway on spin and explanation even if they don’t have cards on
Zizek’s latest philosophical contrivance. As far as framework I think the aff should get to weigh their plan.
You’re fighting an uphill battle if you argue otherwise. I’m pretty skeptical of utopian alternatives.
Disadvantages: They’re good. Run them.
Counterplans: I’m old school on CP theory. I think counterplans that sever immediacy or certainty such as
consult or condition to be very unfair and anti-educational. Same is true of discourse PICS that compete
textually but not functionally. I’m also pretty skeptical of counterplans that use multiple international actors
in unrealistic ways. I think agent counterplans are less unfair but are highly illogical. OK, the good news
for the negative is that I think conditionality is fine, as are multiple counterplans and PICS. And if it’s a
new aff, I lean neg on pretty much all theory. HOWEVER, ALL OF THIS IS DEBATABLE. THESE ARE
MY (strong) PREDISPOSITIONS BUT I WON’T VOTE JUST B/C YOU MAKE THESE
ARGUMENTS. YOU HAVE TO WIN THEM. One addendum to this. I find that people often conflate
competition issues with questions of theoretical legitimacy. I tend to think theory has very little impact on
whether a CP is competitive but for the CPs listed above, theory is a reason to reject the CP or possibly the
team. Obviously issues like text versus function or whether the plan includes an implicit defense of
immediacy are theory questions which implicate competition, but by and large I think counterplans like
consult or referendum are competitive even if unfair.
“Performance”: I haven’t ever judged this stuff, possibly because people who do it tend to strike me. But
I’ll keep an open mind. Frankly most non-traditional arguments I’ve heard have much more relevance and
truth than typical critiques and many contrived disadvantages. I won’t commit myself any more than that
except to say that I think both fairness and relevant education are highly important. In a framework debate,
the team accessing these arguments and possibly comparing between them, will likely be ahead.
Things that will get you good speaker points: Smart arguments, good impact calculus, clarity, well-placed
humor, strategic concessions, old school beat-down (DA and case), specific evidence comparison.
Things that can cost you speaker points: Being a complete jerk and not being funny about it, bigoted
language, clipping cards, any permutations of the phrases “Make that argument and we’ll answer it” or
“You didn’t make that arg in the 2AC”, being really vague about your plan, CP or K alt in CX.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Kernoff, Joshua
(Dartmouth College) Judge Philosophy
Number of YEARS Judging:
High School: 4
College: 0
Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic):
High School: 4
College: 0
Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic):
High School: 30
College: 0
PHILOSOPHY
I debated four years in high school and four years in college at Dartmouth.
Debate whatever you want in front of me... Although I ran mostly policy arguments I'm open to anything...
Certain arguments that I am less familiar with (eg more obscure K's) might require a bit more explanation
for me.
Theory: I think most args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team... It'll probably be hard to get me to vote
on PICS, conditionality, K's bad.... although I am more than willing to vote that some particular CPs are
bad (consult, delay, multi actor I Fiat, etc).
Topicality: I'm probably more susceptible than most judges to privilege args like reasonability and aff
predictability, but that doesnt mean I won't vote on T...
Be Nice, have fun
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lai, Debbie
MSU
The basics in a nutshell:
I usually view things through offense/defense. Impact calc is very important, but not effective as
underviews. I am not a truth-seeker. A dropped argument is probably a true argument. Try-or-die is
compelling. I don't like dumb arguments.
I worked at the SDI and have judged a couple of tournaments on the topic, but not extensively, so the
intricacies of some topic specific arguments will require more explanation. I will probably evaluate whether
the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive alternative.
These are my general preferences on arguments, but you should take everything with a grain of salt:
Theory: I don't like judging theory debates because of how messy they get. I do not think that theory is a
reason to reject the team (aside from maybe conditionality/dispositionality). Multiple counterplans are ok-but multiple conditional CPs in the 2NC are a little excessive. Solvency advocates are probably an
unrealistic burden. Intrinsicness and vote no are bad arguments--but become better if dropped.
T: I am not of the belief that in round abuse must happen, but can also be sold on reasonability. Impact calc
here is also important. For example, if you lose that your interpretation is better for education, but they win
theirs is better for limits, which comes first? I think the burden is probably on the neg to prove their
interpretation is best. In a tough spot, I'm unlikely to pull the trigger on the aff.
K: I am probably not the best judge for the K. Complicated or very representations oriented Ks are not
things I would suggest going for in front of me. I generally believe that the affirmative should be able to
weigh their aff impacts against the K alternative, but have often voted on a K that turns the case. I find "we
need to escape the topic" types of arguments largely unconvincing, and think that clash is important (i.e.
saving your actual arguments for the rebuttals is probably unfair). I also place a pretty high burden on
alternative solvency.
CPs: A good idea. Unless it solves none of the case--then not a good idea. My presumption is that
presumption shifts aff.
You don't have to be overly nice to each other, but I do dock points for teams that I think are unnecessarily
rude. If you have any questions ask me or anyone who knows me well. Have fun and good luck.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lawson, John
I am the Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate
for 34 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3 years and coached at Michigan for one year. I
have judged nearly 70 rounds on the 2007-8 HS resolution thus far, and have coached at the SDI two week
institute and the MNDI coaches seminar for one week this summer. I have coached at summer institutes for
31 years.
I am open to most types of argument but default to a policymaking vision of debate rounds. Speed is fine; if
unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate
the content of arguments and their implication or importance. Traditional on case debate, disads,
counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non
mainstream political philosophies (marxism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern
philosophers' literature.
I am least likely to vote on theory debates, not because I am particularly inclined not to vote here, but
because I am often confronted with lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct
comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other. In those cases, I default to not
voting on the theoretical position.
Addiitonally, I am less likely to vote on straight up performance, especially if not related to the resolution. I
do not find performance to be a particularly educationally sound technique or perspective; it's unpredictable
and generally antithetical to all the reasons why policy debate advances research, analytical reasoning and
critical thinking skills. I suppose I could be persuaded, but it's a tough sell.
Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very
important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without
substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't agree
with than intervene direcdtly with my preferences as a judge.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lazarevic, Mima
Affiliation: Glenbrook South HS
CX Philosophy: I debated at Glenbrook South High School and currently have debated for almost two
years at the University of Southern California. As for judging preferences, I have only judged about 12 or
so rounds on this topic, and I don’t really spend my free time reading about public health assistance to subSaharan Africa. Regardless, I’m willing to listen to any argument, will read evidence if extended in the last
2 rebuttals, and am non-interventionist unless the debaters leave it up to me, which I highly recommend
against. I enjoy a fairly wide variety of arguments, with more emphasis on substantive rather than
procedural arguments. Topicality is the exception to that rule, but for me the argument needs to be well
developed from the beginning. On a related note, I am not a huge fan of theory debates, if only because
they devolve into spewy block reading which makes it difficult to adjudicate. Although I have my personal
argument biases, I really don’t have a predisposition to any type of argument that you choose to read in
front of me, so just read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with. One thing that has changed
about the way I view debate is that I don’t necessarily default to an “offense/defense” framework and I can
be persuaded by smart, intuitive arguments. However, I do believe that a conceded argument is a true one,
at least for the purposes of the debate. That being said, even though I hate cheap shots, if a decent
explanation is given to me about why I should vote the other team down, (instead of just rejecting the
argument) I will. Evidence is good. It would definitely help your points if you debate the merits (substance
as well as qualifications) of your evidence instead of just expecting me to figure it out on my own. The last
thing I want to do is sort through a giant stack of cards. The last thing I’d like to say is that clarity matters
more than pretty much everything else I’ve said. Make sure I understand what you are saying – I like speed
but only in so far that I am able to write down your arguments. Other than that, just have a good time,
debate should be fun.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lee, Ed
PHILOSOPHY
I am a very flexible critic. Win a link and explain why the impact is moreimportant 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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Levkovitz, Roy
School: Woodward Academy and Emory University
I tend to try not to impose my own dispositions when judging a debate round, but I know that that is
sometimes unavoidable. There are two key things to understanding me if I’m in the back of the room
1.) I consider myself to be very flow oriented- debate is a competitive game, and being able to do the tech
is part of that game, I will do my best to not allow any predispositions get the best of me. Just note
dropping arguments in front of me is not advisable (note this does not mean make bad blippy cheap shot
arguments, voting issues etc still must have a coherent link and reason to reject)
2.) I value and reward good evidence. Research is another important part of the activity for me. Use your
work to your advantage, evidence comparison and analysis will not only favor you when I am making my
decision but also will help your speaker points. This means that I will probably call for evidence that is
contested, it would benefit you greatly to initiate a discussion about your evidence vs’s the other teams
cards.
The specifics
Ks
I hesitate to call myself a policymaker, because while I think there is nothing better then the CP and a
politics d/a, I am pretty open to the Kritik. I run the K in college, and have voted for the K in HS. Note if
you plan on me doing the work for you on the K or any position for that matter you are wrong. Good K
debates involve either specific evidence to the plan, or to authority and effective explanation of generic K
evidence. I’ve done some reading in K literature and have a pretty decent understanding of most of the Ks
that have been debated, but if I look confused, it is because I am confused either at your position or your
explanation of it. Often times Kritik debaters forget to effectively impact their arg. Ks are no different to
D/As in that regard. Strong impact assesment will not only help your points but will also eliminate the need
for excess judge intervention. I am a good judge for you if you go for the K Josh Branson Style.
Preformance- I am generally less a fan of these arguments, but am open to hearing them. I sort of feel like
you have to deal with the topic some, talking about debate being racist, etc might be true, but not pertinent
to the agreed upon resolution. If you do choose to go for these arguments in front of me, please tell me
what the role of the ballot is. While I might not ideologically agree with you, I still might vote for you, so is
the nature of this competitive activity. Don’t ask me not to flow, and don’t poop in a bag.
TI’m probably not the biggest T fan, but I’ve voted on it quite a bit this year. I tend to think that the aff needs
to win either that they meet the negatives interpretation or that their counter interp is better for debate. This
is where my belief in offense/defense probably shines most. I think that affirmatives who answer arguments
like “you should vote for the most limiting interp” well are more likely to win t debates. I haven’t judged a
ton on this topic so if your strat is a high tech violation, either be clear about what your violation is, and
why the aff doesn’t meet it, or maybe don’t go for T. also just saying t is a voting issue is a claim without a
warrant. Impacting topicality well is a must.
Spec Args
ASPEC is fine, if you ask in cross-x and they don’t answer, your in even better shape OSPEC- worst
argument in debate ever, it is unfathomable that people have won on this
CP theory
I tend to not really have an opinion on this, but dispo is probably ok, conditionality is probably less ok. Just
reading your blocks will not do, theory debates are bad because they tend to never clash. If you’re going for
theory make sure you compare your arguments vst them. Explanation of in round abuse makes your
arguments more persuasive, but are not necessarily necessary. PICs etc are probably ok, but it depends on
the pic. Affs generally need to do more then say “this is unfair voting issue” debate is not supposed to be
easy, come up with a good argument about why their stuffs no good
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Consult cps
This is lazyness central, but teams are not good at answering them. I will definitely vote aff on consult
theory if explained well (note: IF EXPLAINED Well).
Speaker Points
Things that will get you good points
a.) good debating
b.) Smart argumentation
c.) Good CXs
d.) Funny Jokes
Things that will get you lower points
a.) laziness
b.) rudeness
c.) going for OSPEC
d.) Yelling out 4:20 when the timer gets there
it’s the toc, everyone is stressed, be nice, be polite, have some fun
If you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lingel, Dan
I judge at least 2 prelims and 1 elim round at tournaments—the director’s code for judging.
I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of
debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation,
politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research,
persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer.
Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over twenty years playing it at
every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every
interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game
better. The world needs debate and policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that
the debates that we have now can and will influence policymakers now and in the future—empirically it
has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.
Some things that influence my decision making process
1. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the
existence of one version of conditionality/dispositionality) unless argued otherwise.
2. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan
and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.
3. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything
starts with the link. Call me old fashion but I think the negative should mention the specifics of the
affirmative plan in their link narratives.
4. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status
quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention
5. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and
provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this
year and I have voted accordingly. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments
on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a
strategic negative team.
6. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the
affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more
case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Side note—I believe there are events in high
school and college for performance and plenty of power matching time to set up the side stage.
7. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of
each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject
the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.
8. I know that some of you may not prefer me because I still use a realistic speaker point scale. Here is the
method to my madness on this. I have given some very high points this year so do not be deterred just
adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the
challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and
argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your
speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in
either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere
information processor then your points will be impacted.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Lundeen, Geoff
I debated for both Michigan State and the University of West Georgia in college. You shouldn't make snap
assumptions about me based on that background. For instance, I am unlikely to call for every card and
spend 3 hours reconstructing the debate, but I am also unlikely to be amused by arguments like "time
cube."
I like good arguments, and I will evaluate any claim that is impacted. I will try to be as fair as possible to
both teams, but here are a couple things which people have empirically had a difficult time selling me on
(not saying I won't vote on it, but it might be an uphill battle...)
-Affs which don't affirm the resolution (I think that most 'framework' arguments against these affs should
probably be couched in terms of Topicality)
-Counterplans which are potentially wholly plan inclusive (consult, delay, etc.)
-Cheap shots (i.e., "they concede the perm that they didn't go for was intrinsic, vote neg.")
-ASPEC
-OSPEC
-Pretty much any letter followed by "SPEC"
I ran the K a lot when I debated. This was a strategic move. If you want to talk about Baudrillard, Derrida,
or Nietzsche for 8 minutes and ignore almost everything the aff said, you might not want to pref. me. In
other words, don't pigeonhole me. I like good debates, of whatever variety.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Mahoney, Tim
Affiliation = St. Mark's School of Texas
As a judge I have two jobs 1) pick one winner in each debate 2) enforce time limits as set by the
tournament.
How I pick a winner:
I consider myself a least interventionist. To some extent intervention may be inevitable however it is my
job as a judge to pick a winner based on the arguments made in each debate. That includes being cognizant
of my subjective biases and doing my best to keep those preferences from influencing my decision.
FYI’s:
Speaker points are based on my subjective biases and I use them to endorse practices I prefer to see. I
generally find theory debates to be the bastion of the weak. Your amazingly good ASPEC debate usually
sounds like a 27 to me. Same goes for your PICS bad or conditionality/dispositionality debate. Think of it
this way…every time you say something besides topicality is a voting issue count on losing half a speaker
point. Again, this will not effect who wins debates only speaker points.
Overviews that haven't been adapted to each debate often make your speech sound rote and it is definitely
going to hurt your speaker points if it sounds like you are reading the same overview that you have read in
a bunch of other debates without any changes. I’m flogocentric. If both teams ask me before the debate not
to flow I won’t. If there is a dispute about whether or not I should flow - then debate about it. I will
probably flow that debate but if the team that doesn’t want me to flow wins that debate then I’m open to
alternatives like erasing my flow or shutting down my computer. It would help me if the team initiating the
“don’t flow debate” suggested one of these alternatives.
I assume that both teams will make all evidence they read in the debate available to their opponents during
their opponents prep time and during their opponents speech time. I believe this is a pretty standard norm at
the tournaments we attend. If you choose not to abide by this norm you should say so before the debate
begins. Specifically, if you choose to read evidence from a computer you should be prepared to turn that
computer over to your opponents. You probably shouldn't also flow on that computer because if the
opponents want to look at the evidence during their speeches that overrides your desire to flow on the
computer.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Manuel, Brian
CXphilosophy = My feelings about judging debates are pretty simple. I will not interject my own opinions
about arguments into the debate. Feel free to run whatever you'd like, and I will give it an impartial
viewing. I will, however, flag new 2ar arguments; I feel that there is only so much that can be allowed in
the 2ar that hasn't been said early in the round.
Topicality- is always a voting issue. I believe that Topicality comes before everything in debate. If left to
intervene, I tend to vote that way first. If you think something else should come before Topicality then
advance arguments on why that is the best way to evaluate the round. Interpretations should be realistic and
grounded in the literature. I do not buy stupid T arguments; on this topic I'm against ones like Establish =
Ratify and Policy = Treaty. I don't think either of these interpretations is well grounded in the literature and
unfairly burdens affirmative teams. However, if you choose to run it and the other team doesn't do a great
job answering it then I will probably vote on it.
SUMMARY: I vote on T. Run dumb args at your own risk.
Counterplans- I think they are great to judge the desirability of the affirmative plan. I believe that it is the
affirmative's burden to prove that their plan is better than the status quo and any and all competitive policy
options. Conditionality and Dispositionality are always good, but I haven't heard many good theory
debates; that does Not mean that I won't vote on why they are "bad" or "good". I will assume that
presumption on these issues lies with the negative. I truly enjoy listening to PICS, as I think they are the
strategic way to run counterplans. I don't like Consult CPs, as most negatives are unable to prove
competitiveness. However, affirmatives rarely make that argument, so feel free to run Consult CPs.
SUMMARY: CPs are only good if they are obviously competitive. If you go for theory, do it well. PICs are
good, Consult CPs at your own risk.
DA's- Love them. I believe they must be unique and have a SPECIFIC link. I am not interested in hearing
DA's that have general regulations links or ocean policy links. Running these types of link stories open you
up for numerous cheap shot answers on the uniqueness level. For the aff I am also of the school of thought
that uniqueness overwhelms the link answers only destroy the uniqueness for your link turns while still
giving them uniqueness for their DA. I tend to be more interested in politics debates than most people.
Every week I tend to have the responsibility of cutting the politics updates for my team so I am up on
nearly every issue. This could be detrimental since I know what is going on it is a lot harder to win with
some of the link stories that teams try to run. Basically I can smell the bullsh**t.
CRITIQUES- There must be a reason to reject the affirmative. Negatives can't simply say that they did
something good; they must prove the affirmative definitively prohibits that from occurring. Also you must
prove that the impacts of the criticism outweigh the impacts of the case. Even though you inform me that
plan never passes it still doesn't make the good things of the case disappear. When running a criticism you
should give the affirmative the benefit that they at least get the beneficial result they want.
Impact Analysis - Should start early and often. I believe the affirmative should start their impact analysis in
the 2AC describing how the case impacts outweigh DA's for X reason. The negative should start their
analysis in the 2NC. It should be included in an overview somewhere. Many times I have seen teams leave
it till they get to the impact level of the argument and then brush over it or never cover it. As you wait
longer in the round to start your impact analysis the less weight I begin to give to your arguments when I'm
making my decision. If your waiting till the 2AR to start I would suggest not doing it since maybe you
might get me to think you said something, but if you make a big deal about it in the 2AR I will tend to
recognize that and will not evaluate it.
Miscellaneous- I am a very laid back judge. I will read very limited evidence in the round and I will usually
only read evidence when the other team questions its merit or say the claims are exaggerated. I enjoy
humor, I think with the stress that goes on during a tournament their needs to be some laughter in the
rounds to release some of that tension. For the most part I want all the debaters to have fun and enjoy their
debating experience. Good Luck!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Mapes, Meggie
LeMars High School 2006
Missouri State 2010
Things to note:
I'm a debater at Missouri State University and have only judged at a few high school tournaments this yearacknowledge this when going for arguments. I will attempt to avoid any intervention and focus on what
was said but realize if you leave questions unanswered, you're forcing me to answer them for you.
I default to offense/defense- although I'd like to think voting on zero risk of a disad is possible, it's probably
unlikely. This means you should probably adjust your impact calc in the 2ar if you're only going for
defense to assess the possible risk of the disad. However, a dropped argument is a true argument in most
cases for me so lack of offense doesn't mean ignore the defense because you'll think I always vote on a risk.
Clarity- speed is ok and I highly enjoy judging fast debates. However, err on the side of clarity
ESPECIALLY on theory and topicality debates. They are already messy enough and going at your top
speed will only hurt you if I can't flow all of the warrants to your arguments. I am a very technical judge
and you will make me happy if you're also technical
Kritiks- people seem to dub me as a k hack who loves judging k debates. This is not completely true and
don't run one just because you've heard they have been party of my debate strategy in the past. Good kritik
debates should engage the aff instead of forgetting about it- that means a discussion of how the alt solves
the impacts or turns the case etc etc. I generally think framework is only a reason to reject the alt not the
team.
Disads/cp's- I like these. Politics is good. Rebuttals should include a risk assessment of both.
Topicality- I may err aff on t but does not mean I wont vote on it. I also think topicality/theory is about
impact calculus and weighing your impacts against your opponents (i.e. why aff ground o/w's neg ground).
These debates can be messy so try to be as clear as possible and engaging as possible.
Theory- I'm persuaded by reject the arg not the team with a majority of these small blippy arguments. Don't
assume you win because the 1ar dropped multiple perms bad. If you'd like me to default to another setting,
explain why it means they lose. I generally think conditionality and pics are ok but will vote on anything so
eh- go for it
Performance-esque arguments- I generally think you need to have a plan relevant to the resolution.
However, if you tell me to think otherwise, fine. Although not my personal choice in arguments, I won't tell
you how to debate and will listen to any argument with an attempt to judge objectively
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Marks, David
General Introduction:
4 years CPS, 4 years Dartmouth, 2 years coaching Bronx while in law school.
I have, in past years, had a fairly lazy approach to judging. I do not have that anymore. I will work hard
because you work hard.
5 Point Summary:
1. Offensive Arguments. I will not immediately vote against them, but I find these arguments particularly
unpersuasive because of strong biases.
My list includes: patriarchy good, homosexuality bad, racism good, abortion bad.
My list does not include: death good, suffering good.
2. K vs. Policy.
A. Framework. Equally debated in Big Bad Framework Debate, the K side usually wins (that it shouldn't be
excluded).
Two important caveats:
(i) K's that blatantly steal the aff minus a few words are unfair.
(ii) I don't understand how "fiat illusory" responds to the claim that "USFG should do X." If we should
discuss US policy, then I do not understand what my inability to enact the plan has to do with my ability to
agree the plan would be good if passed.
B. Substance. I think arguments like, "discursive focus bad, material change important" and "your alt is
useless" are extremely persuasive. Common-sense attacks are extremely persuasive. "Your evidence is
circular mumbo-jumbo, ours may not be perfect but it makes some sense and has studies."
3. CP Theory.
Conditionality is probably ok, multiple conditional CP's might not be. Dispo is dumb. Consult justifies a
variety of perms.
I presume "reject the argument not the team." A voting issue must cross that threshold to actually become a
voting issue.
4. Disads.
I find myself prioritizing whether the disad turns case (or vice-versa) and direction of the link. Evidenced
impact calculus is extremely important, NOT blippy laundry list of "timeframe, magnitude, probability..."
5. Topicality
A. Performance. I can be persuaded that I should not vote on T, but my presumption is pretty strongly in
favor of T.
B. I think in terms of interpretations and reasonable limits. Ground arguments are circular. That makes
arguments about research burden and whether an interpretation is predictable of central importance. Focus
on whether the interpretation matches the definition, or whether the interpretation is arbitrary and therefore
unpredictable. I don't think T has anything to do with "abuse."
C. Africa Topic-Specific. These are my personal conclusions - take them for what you will.
"Public Health." I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I have strong opinions that will
invariably influence how I read evidence or hear arguments. I think the Rothstein card is probably the only
one that makes sense. Basically every other interpretation will be based on an arbitrary interpretation of
evidence, and I do not think that affirmatives can predict these interpretations when they're researching. I
tend to think if anything is topical, surveillance is it. Health clinics may not be topical. I still don't
understand how landmines is topical.
"Its" / "Increase" / "Assistance." I think these debates are interesting, and I'm not sure where I stand. I am
very sympathetic to problems with arbitrary interpretations, but I'm also very concerned about limits
problems.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Mast, John
Affiliation = Stephen F. Austin High School
As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first.
To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates.
I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're
bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you
to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the
warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it.
There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big
analytical debate to give me pen time.
Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read
evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too
many teams can't disect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the wayexplain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation.
Now the picky stuff:
Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am
frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe,
however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to
figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are
usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe
exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right
to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to
err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.
Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams
a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is
important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need.
Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their
disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card
is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.
Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these
arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you
are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very
little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the
warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.
Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the
Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical
application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or
"capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are
picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be
implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I
generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get
something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a
teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. I especially behind on the psychoanalysis
literature and debates of ethics that have become popular recently.
Don't assume I've read the authors you have.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Matheson, Calum
I've judged many college rounds and many high school rounds this year. This is my fifth year judging in
college and ninth in high school. I will edit this page regularly.
GENERAL-- I like judging. I think that debates should be evaluated as objectively as possible, and the goal
of both teams in any individual debate (although not necessarily the activity itself) is to win. My belief in
the truth of falsity of any claim should not matter—if one team makes arguments that I believe (or
advocates a broader cause that I believe in) but loses to another set of arguments, no matter how stupid,
offensive, disingenuous, or evil, the team has failed to be a good advocate of its cause, and deserves to lose.
If you cannot answer “genocide is good,” you do not deserve to win. I don't think that the activity could be
beneficial for its participants unless they are allowed to debate anything and everything. This seems
important to me. Whether debate is a game, a forum for developing activist strategies, an educational
endeavor, or a waste of time, this would probably still be true. There are a number of things that I find
important--like qualifications (for some arguments), quality of evidence, and simple common sense--that I
rarely evaluate, because people rarely discuss them. I have edited this to stress this point: the content of any
argument is legitimate. Any argument. Being able to win that genocide is bad seems like a pathetically low
baseline. Don't cry. Just do it. I am unsympathetic if you can't. My point is about content, here--deliberately
abusing someone verbally is not the same as making an argument that is "offensive" to someone.
A debate is won by convincing a judge to vote for you. You do this by communicating to the judge why
you should win—that is, you communicate the importance of your arguments. All debates are impact
debates—you must explain why your arguments matter, and all arguments must have an impact. This is
true for theory, policy, and critical debates, as well as activist and performative ones. You must
communicate—if I cannot understand you, I will not say “clear,” I will just ignore you, happily and without
remorse. If I don’t know what you are saying (i.e., cannot hear you), then you have obviously failed to
persuade me of anything.
If I have ever judged you, I’ve probably complained about the lack of historical examples, especially in
impact debates. I would like to take the opportunity to do that again: it annoys me that vague claims are
made without a discussion of what similar conditions have produced in the past. You don’t have to take this
too far—I’m not going to vote against you because you didn’t make a nerdy joke about Prince Rupert’s
tactical miscalculations in the Battle of Naseby. Use literary examples if you prefer. They’re almost as
good. And for our collective enrichment, avoid Godwin's Law if possible.
I will attempt as much as possible not to intervene, although sometimes it is necessary—if two impacts are
not compared, for example, I will be forced to decide which is more important. That’s fine with me, but my
opinions may shock and dismay you. You should debate however you like, and as long as you have made
clear the reasons why I should vote for you, you will probably be safe from my intervention.
I have no preference for one style of debate over another. I think that debate is like an art form that has
many variations, none necessarily superior to another, and all capable of being done well and being done
poorly. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. That said, all judges have some preferences, and here
are mine, although few of them are terribly strong, and these are defaults, subject to change based on your
arguments.
THEORY-- I hate theory debates. They are almost always boring, shallow, difficult to flow, and full of
banal assertions. I know you have to go for it sometimes to win. Okay, fine, if you must. Framework
debates are especially stupid most of the time, except those that are evidence-intensive and focused on
academic standards or desirable types of education--I rather like those if they are done well. I think that a
lot of "critical" arguments are intellectually weak, perhaps downright insipid (definitely not all of them--it
just seems that debate has suffered from a critique-inspired Gresham's Law lately), so it bothers me that
people claim that such weak arguments are cheating. It is the path of greatest resistance. I have no real
opinions about the theoretical legitimacy of almost anything, but tend to vote negative in counterplan and
critique theory debates and affirmative in T debates. I don’t think you have to win offense on theory
debates—you don’t have to prove something is good, just that it’s okay. You must say "this is a voting
issue because"--abuse, education, etc. are not themselves reasons to vote for one team over another. I won’t
penalize you for going for theory, and the purpose of a debate is to win, so it probably doesn’t matter to you
that I am bored. I do wish that people would read more evidence in theory debates to improve their quality
and objectivity. Claims like "no literature exists about this" or "there are thousands of cases in their
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
interpretation" would be stronger if the evidence for them was more than a self-serving and subjective
assertion.
EVIDENCE--I rarely read many cards after a debate. Qualifications don’t usually matter, except in the case
of scientific disputes or statements of fact. If someone is unqualified and their argument is bad, you should
be able to beat it. The purpose of evidence is to support an argument, so the quality of the argument itself is
the most important factor—comparing evidence is less important than comparing arguments. Eight cards
that say exactly the same thing poorly are worse than one that says something well.
IMPACT—I already mentioned this, but the most important component of any debate is the impact.
Without being told to do something else, I will vote for team 1 instead of team 2 if (impact 1 x risk 1) >
(impact 2 x risk 2). This is also generally the most interesting and most neglected part of policy debates.
What war? How would it start? How bad would it be? What kind of virus? I want to hear all the lurid
details.
EXTREMES—I like them. I wish everyone would impact turn everything. The extreme “right” and the
extreme “left” (I use these terms out of convention and convenience) are equally interesting. Debates in the
traditional middle are fine, of course, but the impact to competing arguments is no less important in these. I
end up judging many, many debates where the two sides are very different ideologically—framework
debates are okay, of course, but I really wish people would engage each other over the desirability of each
strategy (i.e., impact or internal link turn it), rather than just complain about how unfair it is.
COMPLAINTS ABOUT LANGUAGE--You can skip this part, although i've recently edited it somewhat.
One of the things I like about debate is the potential it has for artful and nuanced use of language. Because I
believe that debate is in many ways an art form, I find that common and unintentional distortions of English
are like a sculptor using Play-Doh instead of bronze to build a statue. Intentional distortions, dialect, and
accent are all obvious exceptions to this, except that you should know that 1337 speak should be outlawed
by the Geneva Convention.
The word "genocide" is a noun. To use it as a verb, say "(commit/perpetrate/carry out/enact/implement)
genocide." The "g" in the word "hegemony" is pronounced like the "g" in "genesis." The first part of the
word "tyranny" is pronounced like "tear," as in "tear drop." The "y" in "tyrant," however, is pronounced
like the "i" in "tithe" or "title." The word "nuclear" is pronounced "NOO-kleer," not "NOOK-yu-lurr." The
word "Gulag" is a Russian acronym, never plural, and refers to a specific agency of the USSR. As a result,
nothing is like the "gulags," and anything like the Gulag does not really resemble a prison camp so much as
an office that administered prison camps. "'Spec" is an aggravating contraction. "Tix" is an unacceptable
one. The use of the article "the" before the word "holocaust" limits its meaning to the genocide of Jews,
Roma, Slavs, etc. in Central and Eastern Europe ending in 1945. Thus, the phrase "the plan causes the
Holocaust" is at best extremely unlikely. You are unlikely to "always win" anything. That card is not on
fire. Debate should not prove Godwin's Law. "Knight Ridder" has two "d's" and therefore the letter is
pronounced as a hard consonant, and not like "Night Rider," the television show that starred David
Hasselhoff. "Gearoid O Tuathail" is pronounced basically like "Jarrod O'Toal." The word "kritik" is
German, and the English version of it is "critique." Speaking unnecessary German never made anyone
sound less insidious, let's put it that way. Arguments you make are collective; they represent a team, and
there for should be referred to as "our link" or "our alternative" not "my link" or "my alternative." Do not
call me "judge"--it's okay if you don't want to use my name of course, but you should say "the judge
should," speaking in the third person, rather than saying "judge, you should." Omit needless words. If you
say something like "listen, judge, at the end of our debate today you're gonna see that at the point that" I
will be using those five minutes to imagine a dingo eating your firstborn. References to the following are
no longer funny or never were: Rick James, Steve Irwin, The Matrix, Fight Club, Snakes on a Plane, The
Family Guy, Lil' John, Carlos Mencia, Larry the Cable Guy, The Big Lebowski, and Aqua Teen Hunger
Force. Get off my lawn. I'm going to go watch Matlock and finish my prune juice.
POINTS--As shown by my only ndtceda.com post, I am an advocate of Wake's 100-point scale. I think it
should roughly resemble academic grading. I bet i' averaged somewhere in the low 80s i think. I don't think
I give low or high points in particular, and I'm not very consistent. They reflect aesthetic value, so I don't
really intend to fix that.
Please feel free to ask me about this whenever you wish. Good luck, and enjoy yourself. My email address
is u.hrair@gmail.com
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
McFarland, Tracy
Jesuit College Prep
Basic premise
I have constructed this judging philosophy to describe the things that I prefer or think are significant in
resolving issues in debates. However, this should not be seen as excluding particular arguments (unless the
argument is Malthus or a ‘its good to kill people’ derivative; if this is your A strat you might want to think
about whether to pref me; its not that I won’t ever vote on it but I do find defensive answers persuasive). I
will listen to whatever arguments are in the debate and assess them based on the arguments made in the
debate and the evidence. The line by line is important as is the evidence you read, explain and reference by
name in the debate. I do tend to read evidence on important issues.
I do love this topic---partly because my doctorate work was on Africa. This doesn’t mean that I have a
propensity for the Aff; rather, it just means that I am persuaded by arguments that are focused on
Africa…both Aff and Neg.
Topicality
Debaters on both sides should pay attention to the implications for the round and for the topic. Topicality
is about competing interpretations for me, unless you tell me otherwise. There should be a specific
explanation in the 1NC of what word or phrase the affirmative violates. Negatives should explain what
allowing the affirmative in the topic would allow— ie what other affirmatives would be allowed and what
specific ground or arguments you have lost out on. Affirmatives should, in addition to making counterinterpretations, explain why those counter-interpretations are good for the topic and/or better than the
Negatives. I am not compelled by “we are the only topical affirmative”---mostly because I think it is hard
to explain why this is good for the topic.
Kritiks
Contrary to what some of you might think, I really do enjoy a good kritik debate. The difficulty I have with
kritiks really lies with Negatives who do not, again, believe that specificity is our friend. I am not of the “if
link, then lose” camp: the Negative should, through evidence and link narratives, explain how more
‘generic’ evidence and the K applies to the Aff. For example, explain why the aff’s use of the state is bad;
don’t just assert they are the state therefore they must be bad. The other place to be sure to spend some
time is explaining the role of the ballot and/or the role of the alternative. Addressing how the alternative
solves or address in a better way the harms of the aff (ie by getting to the root of the harms, etc) is a good
thing. Affirmatives in some debates I have watched this year concede too much of the link—utilize the
strategic nature of your aff versus the kritik link to argue both turns and no link arguments. This will
arguably force Negatives to explain how your aff links beyond the fact you use the state. Likewise on this
topic it helps Affs with the perm debate.
Disadvantages/Case Turns/Impact Debates
I also enjoy a good disad debate—including politics. Much like my previous discussion of topicality and
the kritik, explain the link specific to the affirmative. Assess how the impact of the DA relates to the case
impact. Overviews should be specific to the aff not a reiteration of magnitude probability and time frame.
Offense is a good thing but defensive versus a disad may be enough to win. In other words, any risk of a
DA does not mean you win on the Negative (unless a it’s a CP net benefit)—there is room for Affirmatives
to make uniqueness, no link, and impact arguments that erode the DA so significantly the Negative doesn’t
win much a risk versus the Aff. An underutilized argument for affirmative on politics is the internal link
debate. Good case debates with solvency or impact turns make for appealing and compelling debates.
Negatives can win on case turns alone if the impacts are developed in the block.
Theory
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
I have to say not a huge fan. However, if there is a legit reason why what the other team has done has
eroded your ability to win by creating a not reciprocal or not level playing field, then initiate the
arguments. I understand the strategic value creating a time trade off might get you. However you should
think about whether or not you have some compelling args before going for the arg all out or in the
2nr/2ar. Multiple contradictory framework type args are an underutilized arg when there are k alts and cps
in the debate---especially if any or all are conditional.
Miscellaneous Issues
I think debate in all its forms is fun---and each debate round should be fun for the debaters as well as for
me. So look and act like you are enjoying yourself! Productive cross-examinations add to speaker points
and help to set up arguments---needlessly answering or asking your partners cx questions subtract from
speaker points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Miller, Bruce
Affiliation = Bishop Guertin
Having been involved in this activity for lots of years, my judging philosophy has changed from the hard
core policy maker to "something" close to a tab judge. Lately I've voted on pre-fiat arguments more readily
and even ignored T based on the K in the round. I guess I can't describe myself as clearly as I once could. I
do know this, absent a clear RFD by either side I tend to migrate back into my policy making mind frame.
I have no predisposed positions for or against anything argument. I expect the arguments to be clearly
argued out. I real dislike "blip" debates. I want to hear clear and logical analysis.
Specific things...
Topicality...I have no problems voting for it or ignoring it. The problem I've been having lately is the
standard debate. The lack of clash has both sides passing in the night. If you want me to pull the trigger on
T, you better invest some time clearly answering the flow.
Kritiques...once again I don't have any issues with this type of argument. If you realize my leanings the
alternative is important to me for evaluation calculus. The perm debate really has to be clear. Don't expect a
favorable reaction if all you say is perm without taking the time to explain what you're doing.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Miller, Jeffrey
TOC Judging for: Calhoun
Constraints: Fayette County, Sandy Creek, Calhoun
Rounds on the Topic: Around 80
Years Debating/Coaching: 6
Topicality - Topicality can be excellent but if you're feeling like you are winning it in the 2NR - you should
probably only take it. I think a carded interpretation is always the best for the round - and will default on a
competiting interpretations framework. Impact topicality before the 2NR to make my decision easier.
Critiques - I'm not a big fan of the K - but will vote on them. The problem lies in the link debate and the
alternative debate. If you can give me a specific link story from the 1NC and and how the alternative either
turns the case or solves case. I prefer your topic specific cards rather than just your generic evidence.
CPs and Disads - I prefer a CP/DA debate any day of the week. The more specific your links on the disads
the better. You determine what type of CPs are theoretically legitimate - I have no previous biases against
Consult, etc - so onto theory:
Theory- For a good theory debate, I want to hear the warrants of your "loss of ground" arguments so you
probably will need to slow down a tad bit - I am probably more likely to vote on theory than most judges
but you must give me a good story and for that to happen it will have to be a majority of your 2nr/2ar.
Speaker Points - I tend to give out speaker points any where on a scale from 27.5 being average and then
29.5 being absolutely amazing.
Ask me questions before the round or email me before the tournament at jmill126@gmail.com
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Mitchell, Todd
University of Georgia
Milton High School
I debated for 4 years at the University of Georgia.
I love disads, well-researched strategies, 2ac add-ons, Wake MS, and debaters that make strategic
decisions.
I dislike shallow theory debates, generic args that don't change from round to round, and people that don't
answer questions in cross-ex.
I will try my best to evaluate the debate based on arguments that are made in the round. I do have some
preferences, but nothing is written in stone. If you out-debate someone, then you will probably win.
I default to evaluating rounds on whether the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive alternative.
My thoughts:
1. Theory- I'd prefer to hear you debate about something else, but I understand that it is sometimes
necessary to go all in on theory. I have a neg leaning on most counterplan theory: I think that conditionality
is probably good and well-researched pics are strategic. I am more skeptical of "whole plan pics" like
consult, delay, conditioning etc. I am a fan of neg flex. Don't forget to impact theory arguments.
2. Topicality- I usually think it is a voting issue. I default to competing interpretations, but can evaluate it
based on your standard of choice. I think that examples, well-researched violations, and "what the topic
would look like" help the negative out immensely. The aff doesn't need offense, but the neg needs to win an
impact.
Spec arguments- are usually a waste of time
3. K's- I don't have a tremendous depth of knowledge, but affs fail to stay offensive on the alt and the
impact and I find myself voting for them quite often. K's are best when they are well-explained and
impacted, and the neg wins the framing of the alt. K's are weak when the aff wins that the alt is BS.
Framework- A lot of people forget to impact framework- ie is it a reason to reject the alt, weigh the case
impacts, or let the neg "fiat" their alternative. I don't think that the neg wins just because the "plan doesn't
really pass"- there needs to be some development beyond that. I also think that "even if" analysis is helpful
to both sides. (Note: I think that some framework debates are unresolvable and a middle ground may be
necessary.)
Critical affs- often very strategic because the aff framework can be the only issue they need to win. The neg
needs to make their arguments interact with the aff. Affs: I need a clear argument as to why a neg
counterplan doesn't solve the aff and compete on net benefits.
4. Non-traditional debate- I'm undecided. I think that they serve an important purpose and open up dialogue
about issues that may be more important than the topic. However, I think that debate is a game and that you
need to win that what you do is either good for the game or outweighs the game, and that there is a reason
to vote for you. If you are debating a non-traditional team, don't get defensive and forget that you're here to
win. You still need to negate the affirmative.
5. Counterplans- not used often enough. Don't be afraid to 2nc counterplan out of something.
6. Disads- are always good, especially if they link. Uniqueness is not as important as link magnitude. It is
possible to win 100% defense against a disad if it is just not true, but there will probably still be a risk.
7. Impact Analysis- wins debates, no matter what the issue. Offense helps. Cards help. Being smart really
helps. Long overviews hurt. 1 well-developed argument is more persuasive than 10 blips.
8. Other issues
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Evidence- evidence comparisons are more important than card quality
Gendered language- can be a good argument if you win the impact (vote against them) and I am more
receptive than most with these arguments
Mean people- they exist. Don't be the bigger dbag. Nice people get speaker awards.
The UGA school of thought- if you know someone from Georgia, I probably have similar thoughts about
debate (unless it is Brent Culpepper). We like politics da's, process counterplans, and cards.
Feedback- I occasionally give nonverbals if I'm loving what you're doing or if I want to kill myself. You
can probably gauge whether "I'm with you" or not. Please don't sacrifice clarity for speed. My flow suffers
if I can't understand you.
Good luck, have fun, and go to Georgia.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Morales, Tristan
Northwestern
3 Meta-things are most important for my judging: none of them earth-shattering.
1. Specificity: like many my favorite debates are frequently when the neg has a specific Pic with a netbenefit 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-so-shallow fashion before doing
anything else helps immensely in short-circuiting generic Aff offense.
2. 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).
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.
One thing i'm adding - I don't really have strong general tendencies on arguments. However, in critique
debates I generally think the debate about the alternative's efficacy or feasibility is highly important. Many
alternatives are 'true' in the sense that if we, for instance, abolished all binaries there would be less violence
in the world, but they obviously face a serious uphill battle in achieving that intended aim. So affs that
press these questions with more than just 'X is inevitable' will be doing themselves a favor and neg's that
are aggressive on 'alt's possible/imagination can succeed' etc or are extremely good on individual ethical
decision outweighs feasibility concerns will help themselves likewise. I really only mention this because
the side that's ahead on this angle either way has had a pretty good win percentage with me judging.
Final things: debates frequently turn dramatically on who puts themselves ahead and sets themselves up to
win 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 skeptical about most consultation
counterplans and non-topic/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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Mulholland, Rob
I'm not strict about what I'll listen to or vote for. Generally, you would be well advised to make whatever
arguments that you are best prepared to win the debate on, regardless of my philosophy. I don't think of
myself as a "policy" or "K" judge, but do think that the framework can go either way depending on how the
debate goes down. You choose, just make it worthwhile to listen to. That said, a couple of things. I do think
that generally, the aff should defend something particular - if not a plan then at least a clear "reason I vote
aff," which probably sounds intuitive except that I do think aff shiftyness sometimes seems to go too far.
Pick something you can say is important in the 2ar, be clear about what that is with the other team from the
outset. I think that most good neg arguments need to be competitive and defend a clear reason why their
offense outweighs the aff, whether an alt, cp, or the squo. I'm pretty sympathetic to strong turns case
arguments, and making arguments about probability versus time frame in your impact calc is often
necessary. Anyway, my goal is just to reward the better debating - so prove that it's you doing so. Feel free
to ask questions.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Munksgaard, Jane
Pitt
School Strikes = GBN,MBA
CXphilosophy = Jane Munksgaard 2005
University of Pittsburgh
I’ve debated 3 years in high school and 4 years in college for Pitt. Just because I’m transferring to West GA
does not mean I’m anything like the WGLF. I would like to think I’m a fairly reasonable critic when it
comes to evaluating different types of arguments even if they’re not what I would prefer to listen to for 2
hours.
That being said I have a few dispositions:
1) I think you should read a plan
2) I think said plan should be about the resolution
3) I think you should defend the ramifications of your plan being passed and implemented.
4) I don’t like cheap shots
Now specifics:
Kritik: You may think I am an anti-kritik fascist after reading my above dispositions. However, you would
be quite wrong. I’ve won more rounds on Dillion and Zizek than I’d like to admit. I’m familiar with much
of the K literature out there and enjoy a good K debate. A good k debate for me involves specific links
(something better than “they use the state and the state is bad”), some impacts, and an alternative. I have
voted on method kritiks before but find them a much harder sell. However, watching many affs screws
these types of kritiks up I understand the strategic benefit of running purely methodological criticisms.
Alternatives are best if you articulate what my role as a judge is and how that role relates to the ballot.
They’re even better if you can solve the case.
I find framework debates interesting. If you’re aff and you win the framework I don’t automatically think
you win. It just means you can weigh your advantages against the kritik. For some kritiks this will work
well, but others that deny the truth, logic, etc etc of your advantage claims/ontology/epistemology/insert
various ology here, can still serve as either offense or defense against your aff. So make sure you still have
some offense left in the debate. This being said, if it’s a method kritik I think negatives do need to win
framework to have a chance of beating back “specific solvency for case outweighs kritik with no
alternative.”
Disads: Great. I love them. I don’t default to uniqueness automatically to determine which team is winning
the direction of the disad. I generally prefer a more proportional link and uniqueness debate. IE- if the
uniqueness debate is fairly close but one team is clearly controlling the direction of the link I’ll tend to lean
towards the team clearly ahead in the link debate. If you want me to evaluate uniqueness first articulate that
in a speech and why. If you win that argument then I’ll probably evaluate it first.
Impacts are pretty important. Affirmatives need to contest the impacts and negatives need to remember to
extend them. I won’t do it for you if you forget in the 2nr. If affirmatives drop that the disad impacts turn
the case they are in trouble.
CP’s: Very cool. I think PICS are very strategic and fun to judge. If you’re aff and going for solvency
deficit outweighs the disad you better make sure to talk about why the case impacts are so big, short term,
and probable they outweigh a disad that you’re lacking offense on. Assume you will lose a big part of the
disad and persuade me why the advantages are more important.
Theory: Being a 2A I’m found of a good theory debate. Note the “good” qualification. I think good theory
debates involve an interpretation, a debate about limits, and impacts. If you’re missing one of these things it
will be nearly impossible to get my ballot on theory. If you can do these things well you’re in good shape. I
tend to err aff on artificial competition/conditionality/multi-actor fiat/and multiple CP’s. I tend to err neg on
dispo, and I definitely think most PICS are sweet. I also think CPing out of external impact turns in the 2nc
is fairly easy to justify.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Topicality: I love good T debates. With the recent preference for list resolutions in college debate I think T
debates are becoming more of a lost art. I don’t automatically defer to competing interpretations (although I
can if you tell me to). I tend to think you need to articulate some significant ground you lost, because
otherwise aff arguments concerning reasonability become offensive justifications for their interpretation. I
haven’t seen many rounds on this topic so giving me some background by listing topical cases and
explaining why the list is predictable (because of some term of art, or community standards, or whatever)
would be quite helpful to me.
Other tips:
Be funny! If you make me laugh your points will be higher. Extra points for good Paul Johnson jokes. A
coach once told me, “If you have a choice between making one more joke or one more argument make the
joke every time.” I agree with this completely. Unless you need that last argument to win.
Be nice to your partner. Even if you hate them you can at least pretend. It kills your ethos to argue with
your partner during a round. Plus, if you’re an ass I’ll probably dock your points. Debate is supposed to
be fun. Run with that.
Open CX is fine as long as one partner doesn’t dominate the other too much. It’s called a team for a reason.
If one partner is too dominating someone’s points will reflect that.
If it’s the first round in the morning don’t start your speech at full speed. You will inevitably be unclear and
make my head hurt. Remember, many of us were up late cutting y’all cards (or at the bar) the night before.
A gradual build up in speed will make me much happier.
Enjoy! If you have more questions please ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Murray, Jason
First, it should be noted that I try my best to vote based on the strength of the arguments made in the debate
rather than my personal predispositions. So while I may express preferences for certain types of arguments,
this does not mean that I will not listen to or try to judge fairly when teams run arguments that I do not like
as much. I will tolerate more or less any kind of argument.
What I will not tolerate, though, is debaters being rude and mean to each other, or patently offensive, in
debate rounds. I think that one of the things that makes debate a great activity is that it is a welcoming
community that seeks to be inviting and dissociate people's arguments from their character. I ask that
debaters be respectful to one another, and I am more than willing to give low speaker points to people who
debate well if they are overly aggressive or offensive.
I place a real emphasis on clarity of speech and argument, because I think that debate is a communicative
activity. If I can't flow one of your arguments because I cannot understand it, I will give a lot of leeway to
the other team if they mishandle it or even drop it. You can speak as fast as you want, but please try not to
sacrifice comprehensibility, because I sort of think that if I didn't understand your argument the first time, I
shouldn't expect the other team to, either. I also tend to emphasize well-explained, well-warranted logical
arguments over evidence quality. I try not to read too many cards when deciding debates because I feel like
debate should be more about the way that the teams debate their evidence, draw out their warrants and
explain their arguments rather than just the quality of the evidence. I am more than willing to vote on a well
articulated analytical argument, and responding to a good argument by just saying that you have evidence
and the other side does not is unlikely to be persuasive to me. Of course, if your evidence is better than
theirs, that will play a significant role in my decision, but it won't compensate if the other team has superior
execution.
I've listed my positions on some specific issues below, but please remember that while I have certain
predispositions about how I view topicality, theory, etc, I can most certainly be persuaded to vote the other
way.
Counterplans
I like most types of counterplans. I lean negative on a lot of counterplan theory issues. Regarding
conditionality, I lean negative pretty strongly and I think there's even a pretty good argument that the
negative gets multiple counterplans, or new counterplans in the 2NC to answer affirmative addons and
such. I think the negative gets PICS, and I am especially keen on well-researched PICS with specific net
benefits. I don't particularly like generic process counterplans (consult CPs, veto CPs, generic agent CPs
etc) and in the absence of a good argument by the negative about how those counterplans are germane to
the affirmative or to the topic, I think the affirmative has a pretty good argument that they are theoretically
illegitimate.
DAs
I love all kinds of DAs, just make sure they are coherent in their application to the aff. I am not one to say
that there's "always a risk" of the negative's DA, I am willing to assign a zero percent risk to a DA that
doesn't make sense if the affirmative is good at exploiting its weakness.
K
I would prefer to judge a DA/case or DA/counterplan debate than a K debate, but of course that doesn't
mean that I won't listen to it and try to judge it fairly. I am not as well versed in the critical literature as
many judges, so it is incumbent upon you not to simply drop names and complex terms in the hopes that I
will understand, but also to articulate what your concepts mean, and how they apply to the affirmative. If
you try to debate your K like a DA and read lots of cards with short tags in the block, the chances that I will
be able to, or have the desire to, piece your argument together for you is fairly low. A well-executed K is
great, but make sure that you give a clear explanation of what the link is and what your framework or
alternative arguments are and how they function vis-a-vis the aff.
T
I really think the aff has to have a topical plan text. Less traditional affirmatives have a higher burden in
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
front of me to explain what their interpretation is, why that is good for debate and what the role of the
negative is in a world where the affirmative doesn't have to defend the topic. I generally find K's of
topicality unpersuasive. As far as other T arguments, I generally think that the aff is ok as long as their
interpretation is reasonable, but I'm more than willing to take a competing interpretations paradigm if the
neg wins that part of the debate. I'd prefer to judge a debate over substance rather than T, but by all means,
go for T if you're winning it.
I think that mostly covers it, feel free to ask if you have any questions I haven't covered.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Olsen, Kade
I change my mind a lot about what I think about debate. If you've done the research and thought about the
arguments, I don't really care about the position.
I do have some things that are somewhat odd though:
-I will be annoyed if evidence either A. Has a lot of "continues"or B. Part of your evidence is reduced to
size 4 font AND the "hidden" portion is detrimental to your position [the other team needs to find this, I'm
not going to go searching through cards or anything]. If there wasn't a norm that this is "okay," I would be a
total asshole about this. In my opinion, its one of the worst common practices in debate. That was a rant
and probably won't matter in any debates
-I think qualifications/type of publication can be important in many debate.
-The risk of most "large debate impacts" for any argument is quite low, and a smart defensive argument can
greatly reduce the impact.
-I think a lot about what is happening during debates I watch instead of just writing stuff down and try to
figure it out afterward.
-The Card/Debating in round confuses me. I like rewarding hard work, but its difficult for me to assume a
debater has really done anything if they extend evidence without explaining it. Being able to
explain/respond to args in ev is different from sounding nice and extending cites. I really it enjoy when
debaters spend time in to indite the other teams ev. rather than reading one more card.
General Debate Business
-Theory - If something is an important question in the literature for a given case, its probably something
that should be allowed. PICS that deal with affirmative at hand and are "important" questions are probably
any easy sell for me. The more off topic and generally irelevent the question the more I'm predisposed to
vote against an argument (Think Multi-Country Counterplans, Consultation/Condition CPs, ASPEC on an
International Topic, etc.). Conditionality is probably good. I'm not much of a crusader against/for anything.
-Critiques - Its like any argument, good cards are good cards and a good argument is a good argument.
When the Aff/Neg talks about overarching concepts without relating it to the aff, it tends not to go well.
I was never really involved in many theory type "framework" discussions. It seems like the team that has
done more work probably wants to get rid of this question. If the Aff/Neg reads evidence on why the
Case/Critique is prior, impacts are(not) true, and on the solvency of the alternative, I don't get the point of
theory. However, I do understand its role in response to specific things (aiks, the negative tries to bypass
alternative feasibility questions, etc.).
Topicality - I'm usually persuaded to vote negative when they have an interpretation that provides a
predictable limit for the topic and prove the affirmatives interpretation provides an unreasonable limit.
Proving an affirmative allows a few extra cases, especially if those cases are good for debates, will
probably not be a winner. I personally don't find ground standards very persuasive.
Not-Traditional business: I wasn't involved in many T debates about these cases, not for ideological
reasons, we just usually had the cards. I think the Aff should be topical and T isn't an RVI. As a result of
Turner being an important coach for me, I don't really get what the hell framework means. If it means "The
Aff isn't topical - they ought lose" I can be easily persuaded. If it means something else, I don't get it.
D/A's/Case/Etc. - I get it. I value small Defense maybe more than most (alt caus, link uniqueness, link
presses, etc. etc.).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Osborn, Martin
Affiliation = Southwest Missouri State University
School Strikes = Cheyenne East High School
CXphilosophy =
topicality et al - theory is fine but entire debates about it bore and frustrate me. cheap
shots are not *necessarily* encouraged, but will be accepted if they go (a) conceded or
poorly answered and (b) well explained - y'know, just like every other argument.
topicality is probably about competing interpretations but i can be convinced
otherwise. procedurals come first unless somebody tells me otherwise in the
constructives.
k stuff [edited by website host to avoid profanity] - i don't mind k debate as long as it's
done well. alternatives need text. if your k has a smaller impact than case and you do a
poor job telling me why that's okay (de[ontological] reasons, "pre-fiat", etc.) you might
lose to "case outweighs" or any arguments that work well in straight up impact
comparison.
straight up - this is real debate. go straight up, please.
have fun, be funny, use bad words, insult each other (tastefully) and if you're from a
big school and you're a prick, i'll murder your speaks even if i vote for you.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Parkinson, Alex
Debate Background – I debated 4 years at Olathe Northwest in Kansas and I am now finishing my first year
of debate for Harvard. I have only judged a couple of rounds on this topic (Africa) at that Lexington Debate
Tournament. I have only done a marginal amount of preseason research on this topic for my high school.
First: As you’ll notice throughout this philosophy, I don’t have any real solid biases. I tend to lean
particular ways on particular issues, but I can be persuaded differently on all of them. I think that it’s silly
for someone to contend that they don’t have any biases towards particular arguments. I think that the job of
a good judge is to attempt to set aside those biases, and let you all settle it out.
Second: If anything isn’t covered in this philosophy, just ask me about it before the round. Sorry if that cuts
into your pre-round prep. I’ll do my best to make this as clear and comprehensive as possible.
Topicality – I think that this is area that may be hurt by my lack of experience on this topic. I’m not very
familiar with the literature in this resolution, nor have I evaluated a topicality debate. I’m certainly willing
to listen to a T debate, but it needs to be very clearly explained. In general, I have no problem voting for
topicality. I’ll default to a competing interpretations framework, but can be persuaded that reasonability
may be preferable for debate. I think that Ks of T, or attempting to impact turn T, are generally silly
arguments. I’ll listen to them, but I’ll have a high threshold for persuasion.
Counterplans / Disads –I have no real preferences here. I think that the negatives counterplan(s) should
probably be conditional (I’ll explain that more below). I have no problem with generics, just do your best to
generate some unique linkage to the affirmative. My favorite kind of negative strategy, like most people, is
a PIC with a net benefit that turns the affirmative.
K’s – I’ll vote on a K, but I’m probably not the best judge to have the back of the room for this kind of
debate. This year I’ve run exclusively policy oriented arguments. Actually, the last time I went for a K was
at this tournament my senior year. I think that a real solid K debate is one in which the negative draws
some specific link warrants out of their evidence to the affirmative. I think that this is not only an effective
strategy in burying the 1AR with a link wall, but I think it will also help me as judge. As far as framework
issues go, I think the affirmative should have to defend the topic and that negatives should get Kritiks. I
think the affirmative should be able to weigh the 1AC against the K, but I can be persuaded differently.
Theory – I err negative on theory. I think that the negative should get to do just about anything they want
to. I have this bias for two reasons: first, the affirmative generally gets to set the tone of the debate; second,
and crucially, the affirmative gets to talk last. Having said that, I can be persuaded differently. I go for
theory more often than I’d like to admit. I think that one of the big problems with theory debates is they are
too quick, and as a result get messy. If you are debating theory, you should probably slow down, or at least
ensure a level of heightened clarity.
Performance Arguments-If I’m not your best judge in the back of the room for Ks, I might be one of the
worst to have in the back of the room for these arguments. I don’t have any biases against these types of
arguments, I’ve just never found myself persuaded by them. I’ll listen, but your performance will need to
be damn persuasive, well explained, and linked to some relevant issue related to the topic to get the win.
As a high school debater I went for a counterplan with politics a lot. This past year in college, we've gone
for the PIC/DA strategy pretty frequently.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Patterson, Chase
I have been out of high school for two years and I'm still very familiar with the style of debate on the
national circuit and this year’s topic. As a result I would much rather see a debate about the inner workings
of Public Health Assistance then a generic Kritik debate. I love specific arguments, I love evidence, and I
love a clear articulation of what I should vote on, and speed is OK as long as you are clear.
Topicality/Theory – I enjoy a good Topicality and Theory debate, and hate a bad one. If you want me to
vote on this type of argument you need to slow down, put offense and defense on the flow, explain the
abuse story and give a good impact calculus. Aff, please never read “Counter Interp: Only our aff is
topical” in front of me, as it is a nonsensical argument that destroys the value of pre-tournament research, I
WILL NEVER VOTE FOR IT. As for the Theory debate, in general I tend to err NEG. I’m very open to
fun, new PICs and CPs and if the neg has lit supporting their claim it will be hard for me to drop them on
theory alone. As a result I tend to be a functional competition kind of guy. I’m generally fine with
conditional arguments as long as you limit the number of them. Strategic thinking is important in debate
and both teams should be forced to do it.
Kritiks – I tend to dislike K rounds, they usually end up being very vague and very shallow and because
frankly I’m not a K guy. Giving a 3 minute overview that quotes some obscure movie or book is not going
to do it for me. That being said if you can develop a well thought out K with specific links and implications
then I am more then willing to pull the trigger. NOTE: BOTH TEAMS NEED TO DO A GOOD JOB
EXPLAINING THEIR IMPACTS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVE WORLD VIEWS. Fiat means your plan
doesn’t happen or “we turn your case” alone will not cut it, same with generic no links and vague impact
calculus.
CP/DA – These are my bread and butter, I loved reading them and if the NEG can come up with a decent
defense of solvency and put offense on the perm then the AFF is in a lot of trouble. Please both sides:
WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS – specifics as to why one argument short circuits another or why life outweighs
rights should be flushed out early and fully explored.
Alternative/Performance – As stated earlier, I tend to think the topic has a point and that research is good,
so reading this type of argument with me in the back might be a bit dangerous. But if you can clearly
articulate some good reasons why I should vote for you, I will vote for you.
Finally, I know I said it earlier, but it is worth repeating, I LOVE GOOD EVIDENCE and both team
should exploit that. Reading one really good card is more persuasive to me then a bunch of bad ones,
especially when teams can do more then extend the tags during a discussion on warrants. It also wouldn’t
hurt to read your authors qualifications and indicting your opponents.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Paul, Jonathan
Communication vs. Technique: I am getting tired of judging most debates because of the increasing
speed and incomprehensibility of delivery. I don’t feel like I should have to work to understand you or say
“clearer” during your speech. This would not bother me as much if the excessive speed were not used to
make horrible arguments. If one of your cards is tagged “more evidence” you should probably not read that
evidence and try and make a comparative argument relating to the argument you are trying to debate.
People who are clear, efficient, and make complete arguments with good evidence have great success with
me judging. The substance of the argument is certainly more important to me than the quality of delivery,
but a baseline level of comprehensibility is required before I can evaluate the quality of your argument.
I think debate would vastly improve if we started teaching people how to be efficient encouraging people to
speak so fast that they turn red, start drooling on themselves, and hypervenilating.
Argument resolution is much more important than reading more evidence or extending a shitty T argument
or DA for 2 minutes. I will handsomely reward debaters that make comparisons between evidence based on
specificity, source quality, etc. Simply reading evidence that directly counters the other teams and
“extending” it in the rebuttals is not debating, it’s reading. Generally speaking, if an argument that you are
going for in the final rebuttals is no longer than one or two sentences, it is not winnable.
K: I vote for the K on the neg more often than I vote against it. This is usually because affs don’t attack the
weakest parts of Ks and spend far too much time reciting mindless framework arguments and Guzzini. I
think that it is imperative that affs focus on the efficacy of the alternative, mitigate the outlandish impact
claims, and win their case impacts as offense against the K. I feel that too many people are mystified in
these debates and forget that they are really just CPs with a bad NB.
Despite my general disdain for framework debates, I understand that against some Ks they are helpful or
necessary (reps Ks, etc) and I certainly won’t have a problem if you make clear warranted arguments with
impact assessment.
Topicality: I like judging good topicality debates, but I can’t say that I have ever judged one in high
school. Most of the T arguments on this topic are awful. End strength is contrived bullshit, requiring a
mandatory increase would produce a horrible topic, and anyone that reads “T-Subsets” will receive an
automatic deduction of 1 speaker point (calling it “T-Subs” or “T-Mat Quals” will cost 2 points). The aff
needs to make actual arguments about why we broad topics are good, appeal to reasonability (this means
arguing against a competing interpretation/any risk of offense school of thought---not saying “we ran this
case all year, don’t vote on T”), and make arguments about the specificity of definitions. Unlike some
judges who vote on T simply because a topic “will limit the topic and give the neg more time to prepare” I
will vote against an interpretation simply because it is such a gross perversion of the context of the
resolution. Both of the most popular T arguments this year fall into that category. I also don’t think that an
overly limited topic is good because everyone wants to be neg now regardless of the size of the topic.
Counterplans: I don’t allow or exclude any theoretical argument out of hand, but my dispositions to play
a huge role in some theory debates.
Strong Bias---I have probably voted contrary under 5 times and most of those are because the argument is
dropped…..
---The neg gets counterplans
---The neg gets PICs
---The neg gets conditional counterplans/contradictory arguments
---There are better punishments than voting against the team if they lose some theory issue
Weak Bias---This is what I believe, but for whatever reason its more of a 60-40 proposition to win these
arguments….
---Consultation counterplans are not competitive and theoretically bankrupt
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
---The neg can fiat all 50 states
---The neg can fiat international actors
---The neg can’t have an alt that defends the whole aff minus a certain representation
The last thing that is important to know is that impact assessment is extremely important (possibly the most
important) factor in my decisions. I usually start my decisions by comparing each teams impacts and
moving from there to assess the probability of each teams advantage/DA. Therefore, if you drop detailed
impact assessment in a speech, you enter some seriously murky water with me. Most impact assessment
should include, at a minimum, why your impacts are larger, and how your impacts interact with the other
teams impacts. Saying “time-frame” and “probability” rarely help but this is usually because teams just
assert “our impact is IMMEDIATE” or “we are gonna win a HUGE risk of our DA.” I vote aff a lot of
inevitability/terminal impact uniqueness and vote neg a lot on DA turns the case. Making these arguments
(and having sophisticated answers to them) will go a long way to convincing me to vote for you.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Peterson, Brian
I try to be totally tabula-rasa when I judge. I’ll vote for any position if it is won. For something more
specific, here are my particular viewsGeneral Framework: Absent any discussion of framework by the debaters, I default to policy-making.
However, it is very rare that there is no discussion of framework. If there is a debate about what framework
I should be in, I will evaluate the arguments with no predispositions for or against any particular
framework. I can side with ethics/representations just as easily as I can with policy-making. At the end of
the round, I will determine which framework I should be in PRIOR to any other argumentative issues
(other than topicality/theory, unless I am given a viable reason to evaluate framework before those) because
this issue affects all other decisions I have to make, so argue framework wisely.
Topicality: Generally speaking, topicality is the gateway issue that I will address first. I am willing to vote
for arguments that “outweigh” topicality (ethics, etc.), but this will require a lot of work by the affirmative.
I believe that affirmatives should have a statement of advocacy (whether or not this involves “fiat” or
“demand” or any other number of verbs is up for debate) that is stable so that the negative has something to
attack. This statement should be tied to the resolution. I will not automatically vote against a team that
violates this principle, but I will probably defer to the negative’s arguments if they are reasonably
articulated. I am neutral on the debate between in-round and potential abuse. This means that I am willing
to vote for either, as long as I am given reasons to that are compelling. I am also willing to reject either as
reasons to vote if I am given reasons that are compelling. I tend to default to a framework of competing
interpretations: aff teams should have an interpretation of the resolution that they meet, and reasons that
interpretation is good for debate.
Theory: I evaluate theory like I evaluate disadvantages: there should be discussion of uniqueness (is the
“abuse” inevitable?), links, and impacts. The impacts should be compared (ground vs. education, for
example) and weighed. I will vote on theory just as easily as I will vote on any other issue, as long as it is
given the time and effort that the other issues you want me to vote on are given.
Counterplans: I am not predisposed against any counterplans. That being said, the 2AC has the ability to
prove that any counterplans (and this means plain-old PICs too) are illegitimate and should be voted
against. But I am also will to accept multiple conditional consultation counterplans (or anything else that is
“abusive”), if the 2NR thinks she/he is able to defend that. I tend to lean negative on permutations because
there is usually a risk of the net-benefit still linking to the plan action.
Kritiks: I evaluate kritiks in whichever framework the kritik puts me into, assuming the negative wins the
framework debate. This means that the kritik does not necessarily need an alternative that is put into action
with the ballot, but I would prefer (for theoretical reasons) that whatever the negative claims the kritik
does/does not do in the 1NC is the same as what the 2NR says it does/does not do. I have no problems with
the negative claiming that the alternative solves various things later in the debate, as long as the METHOD
for solving those various things is the same. In other words, things like “statism” or “capitalism” or
“violence” can be advantages to the alternative, as long as the way the alternative solves them is stable. If
this method is vague, I will defer to the affirmative on any permutations.
Disadvantages: Nothing special here; I evaluate them based on impact comparisons with the affirmative. I
am willing to decide on “100% uniqueness/link/impact take-outs” if it is clear that they are won. This also
applies to advantages.
Offensive Language: Like I said at the beginning, I try to be totally tabula-rasa and I will vote on any
argument that is presented without bias. This means that I will never punish a team for beingHowever, I am
VERY against racist/sexist (this means gendered)/heterosexist language in debate rounds. I will punish
speakerpoints for these infractions, even if the other teams do not point them out. Please be careful of your
use of offensive language.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Peterson, Jason
Affiliation = Damien, St. Mark's
While I can be persuaded otherwise, I think the following should occur:
1. The affirmative should specify which branches of the Federal Government enact the mandates of the
plan/counterplan.
2. The affirmative team should defend action by the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. The
argument that the affirmative team is the government is silly and unpersuasive.
3. The negative should be willing to write down the text of their critique alternative or be VERY SPECIFIC
about what it is and not waver from that description.
A few other random facts:
1. I have only voted on PICs Bad once in three years of judging. PICs are good, especially if grounded in
the literature. Affirmatives should be extra careful when writing their plan!
2. I prefer debates that focus around a few central arguments. Six or seven offcase arguments is extreme.
3. Many arguments made these days by affirmatives are probably better run on the negative. I strongly
believe that the affirmative must defend that the United States Federal Government should substantially
increase public health services….
4. Please don't make the argument that fiat is illusory or similar arguments as to why voting affirmative
doesn't really do anything in terms of real world change. Voting affirmative simply endorses a world where
the government SHOULD take action. If the affirmative can win that there are benefits to taking that action
they stand a good chance of winning.
5. Despite all of these comments, I tend to vote for critiques fairly often. In general, I view these arguments
as utopian counterplans with some sort of a net benefit. Too many teams fail to adequately prove why the
alternative does not solve for the affirmative advantages. Reading some disadvantages to the alternative is a
good place to start.
If you have any questions please feel free to ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Peterson, Sheila
Highland Park HS (MN)
Background - I'm still new as a coach and judge to many of you, so I'm compelled to offer a few words on
my background. I debated back in the 90s for Edina High School (MN) and then for Concordia College.
My own successes include qualifying to the TOC (including winning the Blake Tournament) and
participating in many elim rounds at major college invitationals. I am currently the Director of Debate at
Highland Park, where I returned to coaching back in 2003. I suspect some of you may know my debaters
better than you do me at this point - Juan Garcia and Nat Olson (aka "Highland Park GO") are amongst the
kids I'm proud to coach.
Basically, my judging philosophy is that an argument is an argument - so run what you want in front of me.
Because I see almost everything as debatable in this activity, for me most rounds tend to come down to
who does a better job executing on the flow. If you are better on the line-by-line than your opponent, more
often than not you'll get my ballot.
In terms of specific issues:
Topicality – Generally a very good argument to run in front of me. I like words, so I naturally enjoy a good
topicality debate, but by the same token I detest messy and poorly developed ones. Which is not to say that
I haven’t voted on my fair share
of poorly-run cheap shots, but it's not as enjoyable for me.
Critical arguments– I have no special threshold or weird filter for matters of philosophy; I vote on Ks
probably as often as I do any other negative argument. I will warn you, however, that in my experience
critiques tend to invite more intervention on my part, particularly where there are counter-Ks in the round,
and where neither team does very much on the order of what I consider macro-level analysis.
Theory – Like I said, an argument is an argument in my book. I don’t require that you
spend any specific amount of time to win a theory issue in front of me. While I tend to end up
siding with the negative on most questions of CP theory, I believe that’s primarily because the block has 13
minutes v. the 1AR’s 5 to develop their theories.
Speed - I have no problem with speed. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear."
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Petit, Louie
University of Missouri
Number of YEARS Judging:
High School: 8
College: 2
Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic):
High School: 4
College: 9
Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic):
High School: 20
College: 50
PHILOSOPHY
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 inslowing 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 comparativeimpact 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 theyhave a net benefit that a permutation
(do both) does not solve for. Ithink 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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Phillips, Scott
I dont have any argument preferences per se, you can run anything you want. For me everything other than
time constraints is debatable, i.e. what arguments should be evaluated first, how different arguments should
be evaluated etc. That being said, absent arguments by either team as to what debate should be about i
would tend to default to assuming we are here to find out if the plan is a good idea, and by that i mean
should the USFG do it. I find myself voting negative more often then not because i think affirmatives let
the neg get away with way to much by not challenging the impact to a kritik, questioning the
alternative(letting the neg advocate the whole plan) etc. When evaluating theory arguments(topicality,
conditionality, aspec etc) i tend to be very line by line oriented, and i think in most instances each side will
need offense if they are going to win. I tend to give teams heavy favoratism for giving warranted arguments
instead of just reading evidence ( i dont think evidence is required to make most arguments, 1 card with
good explanation will help you more than 10 cards) so if you wnat to get good points you should take
notice of that. But like i said that is just the default, if u think the debate should be decided by me reading
all the cards and just voting for the team that has the better evidence, you make arguments to support that
and the other team doesn't respond then that is how i will decide. If you have any questions don't be afraid
to ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Polin, Jacob
The following is a series of things I'd want to know about if I were in your position. If you have any other
questions feel free to ask.
All things being equal I'd be more interested in seeing a "policy" debate than a K debate but really you
should do what you're best at and/or are ahead on.
a. There is nothing intrinsically interesting/entertaining about a debate that focuses on more traditional
policy questions. What makes debate interesting is good debating. The better your debating, the more
interested I'll be, the better a judge I'll be (the your points will be?).
b. If you're ahead on the flow you're ahead on the flow. I once had to vote against a team because they
spoke quickly. If my biases didn't kick in there ...
c. I think that those classified as really K judges and those classified as not so K judges agree way more
often than a lot of people think. In my experience when they don't its usually because there was a part of
the debate that the debaters did a poor job of resolving, all of the judges felt the need to intervene, and just
like any other time judges are intervening they do so based on their biases. Spending a lot of time trying to
figure out how you think people will behave in that situation seems kind of silly to me; shouldn't you be
doing something to try and win the debate instead of trying to figure out who will vote for you if you don't?
If no one tells me otherwise I will evaluate T debates in terms of competing interpretations.
I tend to value debaters' in round explanations of arguments more than the "truth" of the argument(s) and
the quality of the evidence. This isn't to say that I won't call for cards or that the conclusions I come to
based on reading people's evidence don't factor into my decision but if I have to read your evidence to
understand your argument or its warrants you're not going to be in the best position.
Almost every time I judge I find myself wishing that the final rebutalists had spent more time comparing
the key arguments in the debate i.e. impact calc, "prefer our evidence", etc.. Its important to understand that
as a judge the only tools that I have to decide almost every important question in a debate, who has better
evidence on X key question, how do I compare impacts, how I such determine the most ethical course of
action, etc. are the comparisons that the debaters give me. If you don't give me anything to work with how
can I vote for you? Too often I'm forced to vote against the team who is clearly on the right side of the
argument and probably had better evidence because the other team was the only team making warranted
comparisons in important parts of the debate.
P.S.- I consider reading a strategy that I wrote in front of me to be a form of cheating. I don't mean the act
of reading some cards I cut I only mean doing so in such a way that's unfair to the other team i.e. reading an
argument as I cut, constructed, hilighted, and/or wrote blocks for it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't already
been put in this position as a judge in a bid round.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Quinn, Robbie
School:New Trier High School
Debated in high school and college. Coached in college for two years. Went to lots of tournaments, liked it,
learned a lot. Still like it.
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.
Critiques: 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. 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.
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.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Ramakrishnan, Varsha
I am not related to Naveen.
I debated for 4 years at Michigan State and currently coach Stratford Academy. I evaluate things in an
offense/defense paradigm. I recently discovered that I don't even understand how stock issues judges vote...
seriously, it makes zero sense. And I debated in South Dakota in high school so you'd think I would get it....
I don't. In general, I'll listen to anything as long as there is a clearly defined link and impact.
T/Theory
I evaluate on what's the best interpretation for debate (not necessarily what is true in the real world) unless
told otherwise. I have a few predispositions – probably slightly leaning aff for T, slightly neg on
counterplan theory. If theory is really blippy until the final rebuttals, I give the other team much more
leeway. I'm amenable to the reasonability vs. competing interpretations debate but would default to the
latter. Same goes for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse (default to the latter, and reject the arg not the
team). T is not genocidal, you can ask the Sudanese (too soon?)
Counterplans
... I like them. I don't think the CP has to solve all of case or even has to not link to the net benefit. As long
as the solvency deficit is outweighed by a risk of a link, I would vote on the CP. It would be very hard to
convince me that the uniqueness CP is illegitimate, even if that means the Neg uses multiple actors.
Disadvantages
Pretty straightforward so I don't have much to add. 2Ns underutilize disad turns the case. People tend to
overuse the formulaic "we outweigh because a) magnitude, b) timeframe and c) probability" overviews. I
think it'd be better to pick one to say why it short-circuits consideration of the others to emphasize the 2NR
impact.
Critiques
The Neg needs to be explicit about what the alternative does from the 1NC on. I maybe have a higher
threshold than others about explaining how the Alt solves the case and the root cause arguments (how does
"imagining" solve?). Generally I think that negatives are way ahead on the link debate, but behind on the
impact debate. That being said, I also generally think negs are way lazier on the link debate... all those aff
"inevitability" tricks would be solved by reading a specific link instead of just backfile junk on "giving
assistance is capitalist". I guess the neg trick is wording the alt so that it solves all the uniqueness problems
but that makes me more sympathetic to the Aff's perm double bind (either the total rejection alt solves for
the one instance of the aff or it sucks anyways). I don't fundamentally think that critiques have no impact
(though to win patriarchy outweighs a nuke war, you'd probably have to win a root cause arg). I do think
that negs are in general poor on impact calc – you should articulate what the impact is, what that means in
terms of Aff solvency and why it outweighs. I probably have a slight Aff bias on the perm, though I would
be compelled by still links and co-option arguments. This makes me sound pretty anti-K... I do seem to
vote on them often enough though.
Performance
I'm open to performance teams, but you gotta defend a plan or topical advocacy or something.
ADDITIONS TO PHILOSOPHY
I evaluate a conceded argument as a 100% truth claim. So if you drop an add-on for the whole debate, I
won't call for the Aff ev at the end of the round, decide it's shitty and vote that the risk of a link to the addon is bad. However, that doesn't mean that if you drop something you are screwed -- you can still mitigate
it by making comparative impact claims, timeframe distinctions, etc. If the neg drops a "no brink"
argument, that doesn't take out the whole disad, it just means there isn't a brink.
That being said, just because another team drops an RVI doesn't mean I'll vote on it. RVIs are lamer than
Christopher Reeves. And generally not ever impacted in terms of actual abuse in the round.
On a related note, if you double turn yourself and the other team concedes the double turn, it is a nonstarter with me to then indict your own ev to try to get out of the double turn. There is zero risk that I'll
decide your link turn ev is bad and evaluate the impact turns. There is only a risk that I will dock your
speaker points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Reed, JV
Don't radically change the way you usually debate to please me. I would prefer that you choose to advance
your strongest arguments, than to attempt something you're weak at pulling off because you think I'm
only receptive to certain types of argument. I like it when a Negative team's strategy against a particular
case gravitates toward the best strategy suggested by the literature. I will listen to anything, but I prefer
most of all that the Negative's arguments to have a lot to do with the case. I like a good kritik debate. Not
especially important on this topic, but I like good politics DAs. I don't like bad agent CPs with a generic net
benefit. I will vote for bad agent CPs with a generic net benefit if you win it/them. I prefer most of all for
the Negative's arguments to have a lot to do with the case. I prefer kritiks to have a lot to with the case.
Also, for your kritiks, you are likely to be better served by slowing down a bit, explaining your link and
impact with a few well thought out paragraphs rather than reading more evidence that I am supposed to
decipher after the debate. Impact your kritik arguments by explaining why they're more important than the
AFF advantages; nuclear war can be outweighed if the impact it is compared to is explained in the right
way. If you want to beable to win your theory arguments in front of me, you have to slowdown. I'm a pretty
good flow, but theory is tough to listen to andpen time is a must. If you don't slow down, I'll probably miss
something the other team 'drops' and then you'll be mad at me. This includes arguments about the fairness
of this or that framework. I really dislike canned overviews. Knowing certain things that ought tobe said in
almost every debate and putting them in an overview is ok,but give me some indication that you're actually
present for the unfolding circumstances of this particular debate. This is true for running a "one off"
strategy as well. I like it if the 1NC engages the 1AC. Change your "one off" to suit the debate. I also think
that overviews are a time when its good for you to slow down a bit. By the time the 2NR and 2AR roll
around there will probably be only a few meta-issues that need to be talked about in a conceptual way –
these will be where the debate is won or lost and its good to make sure that I understand where you're
coming from on them and how you think I ought to resolve them. The overview is a time to do that and it
helps me if its a part of the debate where you choose to be especially concerned with communication. Its
the part of the debate where our minds must really meet. Also, read whatever cards you need to, but I
like fewer, better, cards rather than a lot of cards from Newsmax. If you talk about the qualifications of
your authors and how that should influence my consideration of the quality of your evidence, I will
probably be receptive to your reasoning. Winning a 'no link' or a 'no internal link' argument really means
there is 'no link' to the DA and therefore, ZERO calculable risk of the disad. This can be true whether
there is also a question of a link turn or not. Often, though, it is the case that the AFF has a hard time
winning a 'no link' argument outright. Unless the Negative's evidence is truly horrid (and there
are many times when it is, especially in the 1NC) or no evidence is read at all, the Neg is probably going to
be able to convince me that there is some risk of a link. In these instances, an 'offensive' argument like the
risk of a link turn will do much to help the Aff. I will try hard to be fair and to get where you're coming
from no matter how you speak in front of me or what you choose to say; that's really the most I can offer.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Rekhi, Jaipaul
Framework: Generally, I think debates should be about the desirability of the plan verses the status quo or a
competitive policy or alternative. This said, I am open to other frameworks if presented, but am not the type
of judge who will vote aff because their framework excludes the negatives arguments. I think the plan is
always important, and generally all links to disads/kritiks should be a reason why the plan is bad. But like I
said before, if another framework is presented and justified, I am down… meaning Affs don’t necessarily
have to have/defend a plan nor does the neg necessarily have to reject the plan if justified.
Cross-Ex: Very important. Do not waste this time to get extra prep for the 2AC etc. A lot of my rational for
speaker points derives from the CX, so use this time wisely.
Speed: Being clear and having some voice inflection is not only good for me to understand what you are
saying and keep me interested, but it is also key to speaker points. Go as fast as you want, but make sure
you are understandable. I will not ask for your blocks and won’t come up to where you are speaking to
figure out what you are saying. I also don’t yell out “CLEAR!” so do what you got to do.
Topicality: Speed is key. I cannot flow at 100 words a second. I’m not asking you to go slow, but make
sure you aren’t reading as if you were reading cards. I feel like 1NCs are very often un-flowable and it
makes it very hard for me to follow what is going on if I have no clue what you are talking about. As for
the actual T debate, I think the affirmative has to either win that they meet the neg interpretation or a
competitive counter interpretation that is “better” for debate. Competing interpretations is not necessarily
the only way to evaluate topicality, so make sure you make clear what it is you are arguing.
Theory: Not a huge fan, but there are obviously exceptions. While I think that running 5 conditional
consultation counterplans is probably not the best idea, I am not a fan of teams who run to theory in order
to avoid debate. Having said this, I will vote on theory, but I evaluate it very much like I said I evaluate
topicality. Have an interpretation, impact all of your arguments, and assess risk. Like I said before, I can’t
flow if you are reading a 20 point block as if it was a card.
Kritiks: Don’t use random jargon. Clearly explain your link/impact arguments in the context of the
affirmative. Specificity is very very important. Don’t just say “no value to life” and “biopower causes
extinction” and expect to win. You need to explain the specific link to the affirmative, the implication to
that link argument and how it interacts with the impacts of the affirmative, as well as how your alternative
(if you have one) solves either the link or the affirmative.
Disads/ Counterplans: I like a good disad/counterplan debate. Specificity, once again, very important. This
is not to say that you cant run the politics DA, but make sure you have some quality evidence that at least
says something close to what you are trying to argue. Impact calculus is important. Also, uniqueness
debates are more important than I have seen people treat them. Just because your “Will Pass” card is one
day newer than their “Won’t Pass” card doesn’t mean you win. Evidence with more warrants/analysis
that’s a few days older is just as good as a crappy newer card.
How I Evaluate Debates: It’s based on what I have on my flow. What I believe/know to be true has no
influence on the debate. Don't assume I know the implications to something, or that something is a voting
issue.
Random: Mark your cards where you stopped reading them. Being funny keeps me entertained.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Renzi, Stephen
I was a policy debater for Valley and have worked as a policy debate coach to Valley for the past 5 years. I
began judging LD at tournaments and learning the activity last year. That said, here is how I evaluate a
debate round. I like being told the function of the ballot and what it means for me to vote affirmative or
negative. Paying attention to the framework of the debate is very important.
I find that most people use the same standards in debate. Therefore, finding new and different standards
and ways for me to evaluate the topic is impressive. It is crucial to me that there is clash on standards. I
want to know why your standard is superior to your opponent’s. Along with that, why is your opponent’s
standard weak and her argument’s not adequate. Telling me what to vote on and why is an easy way to get
my ballot. Speed is fine. Clarity is an important part of that speed. As long as I can understand you, you
can go as fast as you want. Slowing down in places that you want emphasis put is an effective tool though.
Also, I’m more persuaded by line by line debate than generically discussing the issues in the round.
I am fine with off-case positions, but I find I don’t like the way most are run. Reading two sentences from
a Derrida card and putting a voter on it is not as persuasive as someone who is winning their case.
Additionally, topicality and theoretical objections require time and argument development that most people
I’ve seen are unwilling to do. Because I don’t have a great working knowledge of Lincoln-Douglas, in
front of me it’s important to explain why I need to consider certain arguments before others when making a
decision. I have no problem rejecting dropped topicality arguments if you only spend ten seconds
explaining it. I feel that you do this activity because you want to learn about things. It’s not my job to tell
you what those things should be so feel free to talk about what you want to, and I’ll do my best to decide
who did a better job. Have fun.
Topicality: Good Topicality debate is something I like to listen to, though I have a high threshold. Winning
Topicality is not only proving why your interpretation is best for debate, but also how the affirmative isn't
that. I think it's important to demonstrate abuse and win Standards to win Topicality. Generic potential
abuse arguments are not that great, but it's appealing when a negative can specifically show how the
affirmative will create abuse in the future. Also, to win Topicality, it's usually something the 2NR goes for,
the entire time, it's unlikely you'll be able to articulate in 45 seconds all the reasons you are winning
Topicality. Finally, the affirmative's job is to prove they are Topical, trying to win Reverse Voters is
pointless.
Critiques: I'm a fan of good negatative strategies with the critique. Framework is important for the critique
because it lays out how to evaluate all the issues presented. Well-developed critiques are better than short
ones because it's an issue that deserves attention if a negative team wants to win it. Teams need to
demonstrate an understanding of the material they're presenting and the evidence they read. For the
affirmative on the critique, best strategies are attacking the implications and alternative.
Theory: Theory debate is another area that I have a high threshold for. However, good Theory debate is
really fun to listen to, and I have no problem voting on Theory arguments. Teams do not pay enough
attention to Theory sometimes and it turns into the deciding issue in the round, so I do place value on it. I
will not look at Theory blocks at the end of the round so make sure you get in the speech what you want me
to vote on.
Disadvantages, counterplans, and case debate are all great. It's the job of the teams in the round to explain
how I should vote; teams that can do this in terms of what the other teams say are where they need to be to
win my ballot. I think 2ARs get a little slack in terms of the 1AR meaning arguments on the flow can be
extended and expanded, even if that same analysis was not in the 1AR. I'll call evidence when I think it's
appropriate. If a team tells me that I should look at a card and gives me reasons why said card is good,
making the arguments from the card, I'll look at that card to verify that it's good. I will not vote on a piece
of evidence that is superior to the other team but was not used effectively in the speech. Basically, I
evaluate arguments made by the debater more than how good the evidence used is.
Whether you are affirmative or negative has no bearing on your odds of winning my ballot. I’ll listen to
everything in the round; explain to me why I should vote for you.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Repko, Will
The short version:
Mostly b/c I was younger, I started-off my judging career obsessed with being as "hands-off" as possible. I
was the equivalent of the TA that let you choose all of your own homework and allowed debaters "to go for
anything". I assumed that this would cause students to be MORE engaged. After all, if students got to selfselect the items for discussion, they'd be more invested than ever.
... Then, after a decade of judging, I realized two important things:
a) Many (underlying) questions in a round never get debated -- so it's difficult to be totally "hands-off".
Thus, I needed to set some "defaults" -- and these defaults would assuredly be viewed by some as
intervention. I think one of the best things a judge philosophy can do is speak to how the judge will resolve
a mutually undiscussed meta-questions. I'll try to be explicit about those defaults.
b) The "hands-off", non-intervention approach was not really be "used" by debaters out of necessity or even
out of a desire to experiment/grow.
It was mostly being used to craft the best "neg case" and-or shortcut for winning a debate without
addressing what the opponent had said. My philosophy was discouraging engagement -- in every sense of
the word.
As mutual pref grew, the strikecard stopped being a mechanism to solely shield students from biased or
uncomfortable judging. It started to become akin to the moment when undergrads select their academic
schedule and profs. The powerful strikecards of this era are more than a mechanism for selecting one's
curriculum -- they're also a mechanism to maximize short-term interest.
I began to notice that my non-intervention style of judging had turned me from "objective critic" to the
"easiest teacher in the school" -- the one that was well-liked by the students for all of the wrong reasons. I
was being pref'd NOT because I was challenging debaters -- but b/c the new guy would let A-level talent
hand-in C-level work and still give it a good grade.
To me, the assumption that the activity is "better" b/c there are zero external checks by teachers, judges, etc
is empirically false and possibly laughable. I've lived through an era when the vast majority of judges were
"hands-off". I witnessed the curriculum that debaters chose to design for the community when they had
unfettered "autonomy".
It was a bad curriculum. Really bad.
It was mostly driven by convenience and short-term competitive interest.
Accordingly, my philosophy changed.
Hence, the shortest version is this:
I expect a lot from you. Both in terms of preparation and execution. Like the best profs I ever had, my goal
is not to make you happy (non-intervention) -- it is to help you grow (demanding clash).
You should pref me if you either:
a) demand a lot from yourself and think you are fairly prepared, OR
b) know that you are a little underprepared, but still strive to be the kind of student that seeks to learn by
taking the equivalent of the "more demanding course".
You should not pref me if:
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
a) you are under-prepared, AND
b) Your sole agenda is to get an "A" (winning and-or receiving good speaker points) in the short-term.
The longer versions:
The K
I am a bad judge for the Kritik. In my lifetime, no other argument has had a more destructive impact on the
activity. I state this NOT in a macho-hyper aggressive edebate post-ish kind of way. I mean it as a way of
helping you fill-out your pref sheets. If you are academically curious as to how/why I reached that
conclusion, feel free to ask. My reply will not be violent, it will trace my history as an instructor and
observer of high school debate.
In terms of defaults -- one of the most important defaults I hold is to no longer assume that the K is a standalone voting issue (until disproven by the opponent). Many judges (and I used to be one of them) use the
verbal cue of "Kritik" as code word for "stand-alone voter".
I think that makes life too easy for the team introducing the K.
I now require a more in depth rationale for voting on the K. For the most part, any decent comparative
statement will do.
Explaining why "representation is more important than policy", or "why the case turn component of the K
overwhelms the Aff's solvency", etc will cross the minimum threshold.
That said, I wind-up voting against the K with tremendous regularity -- I can think of one time I voted on
the K in the entirety of the 2007-8 season. This is partially b/c the Aff gets to reply to claims like "reps
should come first". More importantly, it is b/c:
a) I am a pragmatist at heart
b) while fiat is not real, I think that a decent team can quickly clarify why the opponent's K also does not
"change the world" -- even locally.
c) Most K alts are awful at fixing their own objectives
d) Most K alts are especially awful at fixing the problem that the opponent has placed on the table
Most Theory Questions
..are reasons to reject that theory -- not as reason to vote against a team.
For instance, I am still fine with letting in-round execution determine the question of whether PIC's are
good or bad.
What is a tough sell is why (on Earth) -- if PIC's are shown to be bad -- this serves as a reason to do
anything other than reject a PIC. The possible exception may be if the Neg committed to unconditionally
advocate the PIC. Absent that, the Aff's theory objection seems a reason to preclude the Neg from running
a PIC -- not to preclude the Neg team altogether.
Another important default is:
If a team says "voter", that phrase "voter" is attached solely to a world where the opponent continues to
defend said position.
Suppose the 2AC runs a illegit perm, and suppose the 2NC says "voter". Further suppose the 1AR does not
address the voter question at all, but also DOES NOT EXTEND THE PERM. When the 2NR claims that
"the Aff dropped a voter", this claim falls on deaf ears (for me). This is b/c the Aff is no longer defending
the LINK to the thing that is a voter.
The 2NR is welcome to explain why this should NOW be a reason to "reject the team", but the Aff gets
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
new answers in the ensuing speech b/c it is essentially a new violation with a new link.
This logic of "reject theory not team" informs by default approaches to A-Spec (at best, a reason to block
Affs from using the general nature of the plan to dodge a disad linked off of a vague part of the plan), to
Extra-T (usually a reason to reject the extra topical portions of the plan -- though I could believe args to the
contrary), Conditionality (reason the neg has to go for the cplan), PIC's (reason that the neg c/n defend a
PIC), etc.
Other Theory issues
T is a reason to vote neg. When you really think about it logically, T is a just a reason to "reject a specific
part of the debate" -- but the thing being called into question is validity of the the whole plan. That's a
bigger deal than rejecting part of the plan (extra-t) or a vague aspect of the plan (A-Spec).
I have found that I am not a great judge for the Neg on hyper-generic T args. I tend to vote Aff on
"unbeatable PIC's" args.
It is not impossible to get me to vote neg on a cplan that solely competes on "functional comp" -- but it is
difficult if the opponent executes well.
To be more clear, I do not think the standard for cplan competition that "the Aff has to defend the certainty
of plan" is a good standard. I believe certainty could be suspended by the neg for the most convenient and
unlikely of circumstances. I believe that this is ALREADY the strategic blueprint for such cplans. In fact, I
believe the inability of the top policy minds to recognize that this standard is comically bad is one of the
defining errors of the last decade.
Again, if you are academically curious, you can ask why I think this standard for competition is suspect.
But, for the purposes of your pref sheet, I think that you should know that you are vulnerable on cplan
theory if you run a cplan that "consults nation X" or "conditions doing the whole plan on Y".
Areas where I lean neg
1. cplan theory -- absent the specific item mentioned above.
2. If your internal links/impacts to a massive security risk are unchallenged (they often are) you are in great
shape. This is -- however -- equally true if the Aff places a large security risk on the table and the neg fails
to questions internal links/impacts.
3. I am tough on new 2AR's.
Areas where I lean Aff
1. I think that if you link-turn a disad, and control the net direction of the link, (but have zero issue-specific
uniqueness) that the risk of that disad is probably still zero. I can be moved-from this position if a metaquestion is raised by the neg -- but this is a valuable Aff default.
2. I do not require the 1AR to extend uncontested portions of the Aff case. I used to require them -- for
instance -- to re-extend the dropped "famine scenario" or the dropped Adv Three. Then, I realized that this
was not reciprocal -- I was not requiring the 2NR to re-repeat the uncontested internal links to their disad.
This does not mean that there is "no cost" to forgetting about the 1AC's uncontested advantages in the 1AR
-- you will likely fall behind on impact comparison. Still, you have not procedurally dropped such
advantages in my mind.
Ditto for the 2AR -- you should (ideally) extend and weigh your case.
But, if there is no takeout to the case I do not require that the Aff re-repeat that the Neg dropped the case.
The most germane examples come from when the Neg goes for a K (for the whole 2NR) or a cplan with an
incredibly small net benefit.
Suppose (in such a debate) that the 2AR fights -- and wins -- that the Neg alt/cplan does not solve the
uncontested case. But, the 2AR does not actually go to the case, extend/re-explain the case, etc.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Assuming there was no effort advanced by the neg to say "our small disad and-or K impact outweighs the
the WHOLE case (even w/o the cplan/alt)", I will not vote neg solely b/c "the 2AR did not procedurally
pull an impact".
I think that such an RFD is way too procedural, that the Aff defeated the nexus question, and that adopting
such an approach would cause me to vote neg with great, great regularity. Essentially the Aff would have
the burden to refute the 2NR and also to repeat the 1AC. I think this is too demanding and ultimately a little
unimportant.
Ask me additional questions if you have them, or if you are curious.
-- Will
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Rickard, Jason
Affiliation: Shawnee Mission East and Wichita East
Status: Current debater at Northwestern University
In general:
The debate is up to you. I am open to voting for any argument as you long you can give intelligent reasons
to why it is good for me to vote that way. Generally, I prefer a specific CP, an engaging case debate, or a
Kritik with specifc links, but these are just my preferences, so take that, as you will. Additionally, please
make sure you speak clearly, if not I will say “clear” a couple of times and after that I will quit trying to
flow your arguments. Make choices in your last rebuttal, a few well-developed arguments are better than a
multitude of shallow ones. These choices need to begin in the block or the 1AR and made clear in the final
rebuttals. Distinctions are very important to me. Please compare evidence and contextualize the debate on
all flows. I will and usually do read evidence but I prefer you make the comparisons so I don’t have to.
Lastly, I love debate, have fun with it, relax and if you make me laugh, it definitely won’t hurt your
speaks.
Topicality: I will vote on T, but it will be a lot easier if you have a specific violation. Make sure you
impact these arguments with what significant ground you are losing or why you they are uniquely not
predictable. In most instances T comes before theory though you probably can convince me otherwise.
Lastly, I am not a big fan of specification arguments and I am easily persuaded that CX checks.
Theory: Having an interpretation for your theory argument is a good thing to have. Severance is bad.
Intrinsicness is bad. But I generally think conditionality is a good and necessary tool for the negative, but I
can be persuaded otherwise. PIC’s on a substantive issue are fine but while I will vote on word PIC’s it
won’t be hard for the aff to convince me that PIC’s out of one word are abusive. Combining theoretical
objections into a coherent interpretation is preferable. i.e. Multiple conditional cp’s bad or conditional
PIC’s bad are both more compelling than just conditionality bad. You don’t need to slow down much for
conditionality, but if I don’t catch your embedded cheap shot then it will be difficult to get me to vote for it.
Please don’t just read blocks back and forth at each other engage your opponent on specific arguments.
Lastly, either go for it or don’t, i.e. if you want me to vote on theory go for theory but don’t expect me to
vote on theory if it is a small part of the last rebuttals.
DA’s and CP’s: I prefer a specific, well researched, CP and DA strat. However case and a DA is equally
fine. I have no problem with a politics debate, but generic/non-sensical links if contested by the aff will
significantly mitigate the risk of your impact. For CP’s the importance of your solvency evidence really
depends on the quality of the affirmative evidence. If aff evidence is generic then your evidence can be just
as generic, and if their evidence is specific to their agent/method then your evidence better be able to
overcome that. DA’s that have both an external impact and a case turn are especially nice. Good analysis
explaining your scenario is appreciated, and if your link story is detailed or confusing then it is even more
important. Lastly, if your DA is absurd this will seriously affect the probability I give it in my evaluation.
Kritiks: I have no problem with the K nor do I have any particular affinity towards it. Specific kritiks are
better than ones titled by the author who writes the evidence you are reading. At the very least you need to
articulate a specific link story and a good link wall in the 2nc/1nr can help you do this. Aff, I find generic
kritik bad debates to be very unpersuasive and annoying. Also, generic K answers like realism arguments
are not nearly as compelling as engaging them in their argument and/or defending your advocacy. Kritik
alternatives need to be competitive and, again, they are better if they are specific to the aff you are
debating. Lastly, I find the majority of framework debates unnecessary the exception being the reps k. Most
framework debates could be avoided with impact analysis. If the neg is reading Agamben and the impact is
global civil war then your 1AC impacts will interact without either side winning a framework debate.
Framework: Like I said above, please don’t make framework arguments unless they are necessary. The aff
needs a plan that grounds them in the resolution, you can do whatever else you want with the affirmative,
but please read a plan text. If you don’t I will easily vote negative on T-You need a plan. I find that in a lot
of debates both teams make framework arguments and their interpretations are functionally identical. Also,
bad framework args/pre-empts in the 1ac are usually unnecessary and just scream that you are not ready for
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
a K debate. Make the argument in the 2ac if it’s necessary. Good framework debates involve detailed
impact analysis that develops the interaction between the 1ac and the kritik. Lastly, like T and theory, you
need to have a good interpretation of your framework in order for it to be compelling.
Random:
Likes – humor, intelligent arguments, and strategic use of cx.
Dislikes – card clipping, under highlighting your evidence (you will only get as much of an argument as
your evidence warrants), blippy speeches, extending tag lines instead of warranted arguments, stealing
prep, unnecessary aggression or rudeness.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Roake, Rob
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Coach, college and high school debate background.
I make a very concerted effort to be open minded when considering your arguments. Run whatever you
want. Wanna run a traditional fiat strat? Word. Wanna shit on some paper and read a poem? I’m down. But
please don’t fiat/shit just for the sake of it. Make an argument. Defend a framework. Make some
offense/defense comparisons for me. Simplify the round. That being said, please feel free to ask me any
specific questions you may have before the round.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Rubaie, Brian
Do what you do best. Have fun. If you're trying hard and enjoying yourself I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever you
have to say.
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS - My bias towards any one form of argument is becoming so slight that I
think it's almost irrelevant. Here are more important things to consider; I don't read very many cards after
the debate. The first thing I evaluate after a debate is my flow of the 2NR and 2AR. A 2AR shouldn't
consist of 'extend my 2AC' - extending 1AR arguments is much more successful in front of me than your
re-crafting of 2AC blocks. I like debates that seem at least somewhat grounded in reality. How you do that
is
up
to
you,
but
the
more
personal
understanding
you
demonstrate
alongside your evidence, the better I'll gather your thoughts.
SPEAKER POINTS - Note that this varies slightly by size and entrance of competition - a novice 28.5 is
much different than a 28.5 at a national championship. AN ALMOST SURE-FIRE 28.5 - Asks and answers
good questions in cross-x. Works with their partner and mutually strengthens the team. Every argument in
the rebutall is well-organized, warranted, impacted and analyzed. Most arguments are accompanied by
references to evidence or strong analytic argument. The speaker's delivery always communicates arguments
clearly. Average performance in any of these five skills probably means a 28. Average performance in
some but troubles in others is usually a 27.5-26.5.
I know most are reading this because they don't know me and are probably too busy to continue much
longer so I'll offer a short summary. I'll vote on "stock issues" if that's what you like to argue and you do it
well or I'll vote on a leftist performance. It really doesn't matter to me as long as the basic skills outlined in
the 'Speaker Points' paragraph are present and practiced well. Additional thoughts are below but are
probably uninteresting.
SPEED – is not a problem. If you are unclear I will alert you once then look up or set down my pen if I still
can't understand you. Being clear makes EVERYTHING you do better for me. It makes me want to listen,
it improves my flow, and it makes me more receptive to your arguments.
TOPICALITY – Competing interpretations v. Reasonability has been present in every T debate I've ever
witnessed but has never been a crucial deciding factor in determining the winner a Topicality debate. What
happens if I 'Err Aff?' While this sentiment is useful, it's much more effective to me if addressed in terms of
your standards (i.e. affirmative ground is much more important to preserve because the field of potential
solvency advocates is inifinitely smaller than the field of potential negative arguments). I think these
debates are often uncomfortable for two reasons -- first, because of a common lack of development of
major arguments early in the debate -- second because of a lack of comparison between different types of
benefits to each interpretation. I'm as uncompelled by a 4-second 1NC "independent voter" as I am by an
incoherent 2AC "we meet." I don't think I can imagine an entertaining -spec debate. Critiques of topicality
are much clearer to me if accompanied by a counter-interpretation. Similarly, critical AFFs are usually well
served to have a plan text, topcal or not. It's much easier for you to convince me something is okay if you're
defending a short text rather than an entire 1AC as your plan.
THEORY – Theoretical arguments are often strategic and necessary. I'm more willing to vote on these
arguments than most judges, or at least less likely to penalize a 2AR that goes all-in. I'm interested in
arguments for why one type of theoretically questionable behavior necessitates ground elsewhere.
Examples of these that I've seen or judged include things like 'links of omission justify intrinsic perms',
'PICs out of words in the resolution are bad and justify severance perms,' etc. Cover your bases here - I
won't hack for the two words 'indepedent voter' but I will for a team who spends 3 minutes developing an
argument and a 1AR that glosses over it because they thought it was an insignificant portion of the block.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
CRITIQUES – I still don't understand why these arguments evoke so much emotion. I think these debates
are generally well-served by a clear advocacy. It is much easier for me to envision why a particular
permutation is bad if it is weighed versus a well-defined advocacy. The debate over the amount of leverage
a team can get with an alternative is still open in my mind.
PERFORMANCE/PROJECTS – I haven't judged much of this but I don't think I'd mind at all. When I've
debated teams that sing, read poetry, etc. I've often found the arguments incredibly interesting. I think any
activity that wants to survive should promote inclusivity and self-reflection. If the way debate is currently
practiced is harmful I think it is certainly a fair thing to challenge.
COUNTERPLANS – Should have a solvency advocate, or at least something resembling one. "Jimmy
Carter once wrote an executive order to support disease prevention" probably isn't good solvency evidence.
"Congress has a specific committee with jurisdiction over Malaria prevention with an effective track
record" probably is. Be careful when writing a text, unless you're real smooth you probably won't get a
chance to re-write it. Please be ready to describe the status of your counterplan and clearly articulate net
benefits if asked.
DISADVANTAGES – Are probably my favorite thing to debate and often the easiest thing to judge. I
realize most of these stories are contrived, but common phrases such as "even though it's dumb they didn't
answer it" and "even if we only win 1%" bother me...come on poncho, at lease humor me into thinking
your argument is good. Impact calculus is paramount. I believe an affirmative can win ‘terminal defense’ to
a disadvantage. Well articulated analytical arguments are IMPORTANT. The narrative structure of most
disads is usually MOST vulnerable to an analytic attack, especially given the evidence quality in most
politics debates (oxymoron?) Typing that last sentence reminded me that I'm from Kansas, but it's true.
CASE – is usually underutilized. Smart solvency turns usually appear poorly answered in the 2AC, or at
least the limited ones I've judged. A good affirmative should find ways to keep the 1AC relevant in the
debate. There is a strong, strong correlation between teams that extend their advantages in the 2AC and
teams that win my ballot.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Sabino, Lauren
I really like debate, both judging, debating, or even just observing. I debated 4 years in high school and I
debate now in college for Wake Forest. That said, I want you to first and foremost be aware that since I’m
such a debate fan, I want you to do what you like best and know best in front of me, not necessarily what
you think I will like/know.
However, I hate judge philosophies that say nothing about what the person actually thinks, so. Here.
Theory:
I would prefer to hear debates about substance, but I also believe you have to do what you have to do in
order to win. So, if this is your out: Debate it out, impact it and spend some time. I like debates where
distinctions are made and examples are given. It takes some convincing to merit rejection of the TEAM, not
just the argument. I’m pretty neg on most/all counterplan theory. I’m persuaded by arguments about what
evaluative frame is most logical. I am pretty aff on what perms the aff gets against vague K alts.
T:
I like T debates and I like topical affs. I think examples, again, are good. I do think competing
interpretations vs. reasonability is a debate that has gotten really shallow, so teams that actually give some
meaning to these arguments will probably do well for themselves. Not very persuaded by K’s of T, but they
happen and I will be as objective as possible.
Disads/Case:
I love disads A LOT. I love negative blocks that are really deep on the case and affs that are willing to
invest some time there. I think both disads and case arguments should be impacted well (i.e., if there’s a
case argument as to why there’s, like, no impact to terrorism, you should tell me why this is important, not
just explain some random warrants in the card.). Tell me how the disad interacts with the case in multiple
scenarios. Affs: Why does your case solve the DA/make it not matter? Neg teams: Why does your DA take
out/turn the case? Or outweigh it?
CPs
Good, tricky counterplans are good. That said, I don’t think affs necessarily have to defend stuff that’s not
in their plan. Like, if the negative both tells the aff what normal means is and then PIC’s out of it, the aff
would do well spending some time on why that’s not competitive. Not saying it’s not winnable, but just be
up on this.
K’s
I like them… I used to go for these all the time in high school. I go to Wake now, so less so. I remember a
bit, but explain the literature. I don’t read this stuff anymore, and I’m way out of the game on trendy new
authors. Slow down a little on the stuff that might be tricky. Debate the world of the alt vs. the world of the
not-alt vs. the world of the perm. Both teams should be talking specifically about the case, not just an up or
down vote on, like, the Rev.
Performance:
I’m open to this, but I am probably not the best judge for it. If you have something cool and creative to say,
I’d like to be a part of it, but I also think you need to defend something as a starting point for discussion
from which the other side can generate offense. If I think they’re making responsive arguments (and
obviously not all arguments are responsive) and explaining why, and all you’re saying is “They
misunderstand”, then that’s probably a red flag.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Stylistically/Random:
Fast debaters are great (but no longer impress me) and so are slow debaters. Whatever enables you to cover
efficiently and well and be understood/flowed, you should do that. Don’t try to be faster than you are or
slower. Don’t give needless overviews. Don’t spread yourself out. Don’t steal prep. I’m faithful to my flow
and I’m big on protecting the 2NR. Explain your evidence. I don’t like reading a big stack of cards after a
debate that you aren’t explaining, and I probably won’t do that. A mediocre piece of evidence with a lot of
great spin and impact analysis is going to beat an on-fire card you never explain. Be tricky, be smart, and
have fun!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Sanchez, Sara
Affiliation: Rowland Hall St. Mark’s
School Strikes: RHSM
Number of Debates on the Africa Topic: 80-100
Last Edited: 2/19/2008
General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much
voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. There are no arguments that
I am particularly prone to accept/reject on-face. That said, the following is true.
Impact calculus is your friend.
I hate intervention with a burning passion.
I prefer not to read evidence for the fun of it. Unless the warrants of a particular card are contested in the
round, I don’t want to be reading your evidence. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin
than some judges, you should be calling out bad ev that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it.
Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round
when it’s necessary, but I feel that adds an unfair element into the debate round, where you are now held
accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please,
weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.
I consider myself an okay flow, and have not run into any problems regarding speed. I do find that if you
are reading multi-sub-pointed theory blocks at the same rate that you are reading your cards, I’m probably
missing a bit of the nuance, it would be nice if those were as clear as possible. Clarity ALWAYS trumps
speed. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should
probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s
not in the round.
Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost
them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a
wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent
portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is
fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.
Speaker points probably start at a 27-27.5. I think I've given two 29.5s this year, it's been over a year since I
gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive in the round, and I'll
likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.
What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however
I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if it isn't here, it's
because I really cannot fathom a time it wouldn't be okay.
Topicality/Theory. I’m more than open to these debates, I went for them my fair share back in the day and
have no problems pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing
interpretations. That said, I’ve yet to see a debater really win these arguments, without actually going for it
in the rebuttals. If you want to go for one of these positions, that is likely fine, but you probably should
spend more than a minute or two on it. Anything else likely isn’t enough time, unless it was conceded, and
you’ve probably just wasted a decent portion of your speech. You should have an interpretation in these
debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples and impacts) that your interpretation is
preferable to the other team's. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're
probably fine.
Counterplans: I tend to error negative on most theoretical objections to CPs (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.)
although I'm probably more sympathetic to these claims on consult or procedural counterplans. I've become
a fan of specific PICs this year, they are one of my favorite types of rounds to judge, so you have a bit more
of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args,
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced
theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional consult counterplans bad is more persuassive
than just conditionality bad.
The K: I ran it in high school and college with some degree of success, and don’t have a problem with it
generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, however I’m reticent to believe
that a “framework” is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the
arguments that are leveled against their case. I’m familiar with most of the literature to at least some
degree. Additionally, I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly
frustrating for me to adjudicate.
If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, you want to be able to clearly articulate the link and
what the alternative does. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different postalt. Similarly if you're aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of
the ballot is, etc. I personally think that a topical plan is a good thing. If you are running an aff with no
topical action whatsoever, I may not be the best judge for you.
That said, since I’ve come back to debate I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical
literature. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political
theory/philosophy. Do not assume that I've read Zupancic. I personally lean towards believing realism
inevitable type arguments. While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened,
this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.
In a nutshell? It’s your round, be nice, have fun, don’t make me intervene, we’ll all be happy.
If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.
Good luck. :)
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Schultz, James
April, 2008.
I just finished debating my 2nd year at West Georgia. Before that I spent a lot of time in Florida at schools,
like Celebration, St. Andrews, and Jupiter. This is the 6th toc I will have judged at.
I think judge philosophies have a pretty limited value. Debaters are going to make the arguments they are
best at, and I'm going to listen to them and flow them and read as few cards as possible. Then I try to put
aside all of the reasons I think an argument is stupid, and vote on the arguments debaters make in a given
round. The most useful thing I've found when reading judge philosophies is to find judges that seemed
either really random, really stupid, or idealogues that weren't going to listen to a type of argument openly.
So if you are looking for a judge to strike, I'm your guy. Strike me.
Need more convincing?
I'm a jerk - seriously. I love debate, but I'd almost surely be doing anything else besides judging your
round. I'd rather be scouting, cutting cards, writing blocks, eating at the Tolly Ho, taking a nap in the
hallway, playing n_game or civ2, or enjoying the local hospitality. If you start making the thing I love
painful for me to watch, I can't help but look displeased and give you low points to boot.
I'm closed minded - I have never been persuaded to vote aff because the neg ran a K, one of the infinite
possible frameworks that steal all of the aff ground and could never be predicted. lol. I have never been
persuaded to vote aff despite the aff being non-topical because of some theoritical objection to part of a 1nc
strategy. I have never voted neg because of a permutation the aff made making it too difficult for the neg to
win.
I'm really stupid - I'm old enough to have gray hairs and I haven't graduated from college. No matter how
many times I read cards by Spanos, Lacan, and other people that I'm not smart enough to remember their
names, I can't understand them.
I'm totally random - I have voted for Spanos, Lacan, and other author's arguments that I don't fully
understand because a team did a good enough job of explaining their argument, and the other team was way
behind on answering that argument. Even though I think the politics disad is totally dumb, I vote neg for it
all the time.
I think offense/defense is lame - if the neg has a canada cp, and the aff wasn't able to make any meaningful
solvency deficit, i'll still vote aff on defense. I think there is such a thing as zero percent risk of a link.
Still not convinced? isn't that just evidence at how bad I am at making convincing arguments, and probably
identifying quality arguments. All the more reason to strike me. Or put me really low.
Oh, if you don't strike me, and I happen to drop you. Please please please post-round me. Yell - don't wait
for me to finish saying anything. Get personal - use ad homs, call me stupid, lazy, ugly, etc. Explain your
argument way better after the debate - after all, you don't have those pesky time limits that convinced you
to speak for 10 seconds at top speed about the thing you want to talk about for 20 minutes now. Actually,
don't even stick to the arguments you made in the round - why limit yourself, you probably realized other
good arguments in the mean time. If your coach wants to yell, get them too, especially if they did not watch
the round!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Serrano, Nicole
A few things you should know. I debated for 4 years in high school at Nicolet in Wisconsin, and throughout
my time at Dartmouth College. I have coached a variety of times to a variety of degrees, but most recently
I have worked with the Hanover High debate team for the last few years. I am fairly well acquainted with
the topic after working at Dartmouth Juniors and the Dartmouth Debate Institute, as well as through
coaching.
I think a judge's role is to decide the round as much as possible upon the arguments presented in the round.
I don't believe that anyone is totally impartial, but I will try to be as much as possible. Generally, I use
conventions such as flowing, arguments not answered are considered "true," and a structure of cause-andeffect. I am willing to engage you in another form of debating provided you explain to me what my role is,
and why it is superior to the form of debating in which the other team would like to engage me.
Here is a list of things you should and should not do in front of me to win my ballot and/or get good
speaker points
- DO speak clearly, enunciate, and in a flowable manner. I will indicate to you verbally and non-verbally if
I cannot understand what you are saying. I expect to be able to understand the text of the cards as much as I
do the tags.
- DO mark your cards as you are reading them. I believe that it is important to indicate what parts of cards
you read as you go. It may be an innocent mistake, but it is difficult for the other team to prepare if they
have to wait all of cross-x for you to mark your cards
- DO explain your arguments. For kritiks, the links and the impact are important, clearly, but often teams
fail to explain their alternative and what that means I am voting for. For all arguments, explain the impact
and the implication to your arguments in relation to other arguments in the round.
- DO NOT blow off theory arguments. I think I am far more likely to vote on theory or topicality arguments
than many judges (although I could be wrong). I expect there to be a claim, a warrant, and an impact to the
argument. You fulfill these simple needs, and you may pull off a "cheap shot" win. Please don't take this as
an invitation to pull out every bad argument you have. PLEASE don't do that. But teams should be aware
and answer these arguments.
- DO be polite and respectful of the other team. Nothing will lose you speaker points faster than insulting
the other team, your partner or any person or group that may not be present. I appreciate debates that are
emotionally charged and are self-reflective, so please feel free to run those arguments. I simply believe that
it is possible to debate from the heart without throwing daggers at another person, so please be respectful.
- DO NOT steal prep time. I promise I will give comments at the end of the round, not just to explain my
decision, but in some way to help you either understand the argument better, give you an idea how to pick
up my ballot in the future, and hopefully improve your understanding and/or skill of debate. I think the
most important role of the judge is not to decide the round, but rather to provide constructive feedback to
the debaters. In exchange, please have the round run on a timely manner so I can have enough time to
provide you with comments, not push the tournament behind, and coach.
- DO NOT "steal" your partner's cross-x. Open cross-x is fine, but if one person on a team asks and answers
all the questions, it is unlikely that the non-participator will receive high speaker points. This does not mean
you should be shy about answering or asking a question. Its just that someone who never answers or asks a
question is unlikely to get many points. And someone who doesn't let their partner get a word in edgewise,
unlikely to get a 30 no matter how good they are.
Other than that, debate your best and have fun! Nothing makes me feel more like giving out a LOT of
speaker points than a debate where all four debaters are nice and fun and whom create a fun atmosphere of
which to be a part. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Shackelford, Mike
Head Coach at Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s
Rounds on the Topic: 30
Years in Activity: 10
Overview: I’ve been involved with debate for a while. I debated in high school, I went to the NDT 4 times
in college, I coached on the college level, and now I coach at RHSM. I’ve also debated for over a dozen
different coaches and assistants. During this time I have been exposed to, and learned to respect, all types
of arguments and debating styles (from heg good to zombies). Debate is a game, so have fun. That being
said, do what you do best.
Topicality: My fall back is a competing interpretations framework. Good evidence here can win you the
debate.
Disads: I prefer specificity instead of generics.
Counterplans: Again, I prefer a CP that is tailored to the aff. This means I would rather hear a CP from the
literature/solvency advocate than a Consult NATO CP.
Kritiks: Do something that shows you get it. A good kritik debater doesn’t need to read a ton of cards.
Make arguments about the role of the ballot and the nature of your alternative. Start the “framework”
discussion because if neither side says anything, the 2AR is probably right about their impacts outweighing.
Theory: I default to an offense/defense mindset when evaluating theory, but I’m flexible. Don’t go for
theory unless you can prove abuse, ground loss, etc. If you’re negative, try to stay consistent. You’re
starting behind if you have 3 conditional, conflicting, alternatives, one of which doesn’t have a text.
Final Thoughts: I flow a lot. I appreciate well-researched and strategic strategies. I expect you to defend
your framework with something beyond “its called policy debate for a reason.” I will vote on defense.
Don’t use all your speech and prep time if you don’t need it. Weigh impacts. If you want love in the
speaker point department, be clever, strategic, and bold.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Shore, Sam
I debated in high school at Greenhill School in Texas, and I am currently a debater at Michigan State. A
fair number of the assumptions that one would draw about me being affiliated with those institutions are
probably true.
Case Debates – Case debate is underutilized in high school debate, there are few things that I am more
impressed with than beating a team on their own aff. Although, too many teams gloss over the fact that
there needs to be uniqueness for neg case turns.
Disads – Defensive arguments important, and I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad if the affirmative
has damning defensive arguments even if the affirmative lacks any offensive arguments. Negatives who
rely on there always being a risk of a link will leave me unimpressed. That being said though, I often think
that many times a lack of offense does result in a high probability of the disad.
Kritiks – I find framework arguments to be important, the 1nc should be setting up the role of the ballot for
the negative it shouldn’t be a 2nc response to policymaking good. Teams must articulate an impact to what
happens if they win their framework arguments. I don’t think the negative must have an alternative but I
find it hard for the neg to establish uniqueness for their links without one. Affirmatives need to find ways to
leverage their aff against the implications of the kritik as well as making sure that they are still able to
access their offense if they lose their framework arguments. Negs must also discuss why the aff makes the
squo worse, not merely why biopower or cap or patriarchy is bad. I’m certainly not well versed in much
kritik lecture so avoiding buzzwords and jargon can help my understanding. I would rather be judging a
CP/DA strategy than a kritik but I find myself voting neg oftentimes when judging kritiks simply because
affirmatives often mishandle them.
CPs –I lean negative on most CP theory issues, although I’m not a huge fan of the consult cp. Although,
this does not mean that affs cannot win theory debates in front of me. Additionally I think the arguments
that affs make as to why some counterplans are bad, tend to be much better when used as a reason why the
permutation is legitimate. Negs should be sure to weigh what happens when there is a solvency deficit to
the cp when making their impact calculus arguments.
Topicality – I tend to view T debates in an offense/defense framework. Its all about competing
interpretations, whomever creates the best world for debate should win, issues of abuse are not necessary
but can be helpful. Kritiks of topicality are a waste of your breath; topicality is not ever a reason to vote aff
unless completely botched by the neg.
Theory – I lean neg on most theory questions, despite this I think theory can be deployed strategically and
is a useful weapon. Additionally this is not to be taken to mean that I like to hear your XYZ-Spec
argument, your points will go down. Conditionality is no worse than dispositionality and both are good, so
are PICs. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote aff on theory though, whomever can make their trivial
distinctions seem most important will probably win. Comparisons between aff and neg args are a must –
just re-reading your theory block in the 2nr/2ar will not win you a debate.
Non-traditional affs – I’ve debated at Greenhill and Michigan State, if that doesn’t provide some hint, I’ll
break it down some more. I feel that policymaking is good for debate, and that these types of affs leave the
negative with very little ground. Often times these debates generate ridiculous discussions and are hard to
decide as a judge.
Side Notes: All of this being said – I will evaluate the arguments made in the round even if they are
contrary to my beliefs, this is just a guide of what I think and how I will default with a lack of
argumentation. Evidence comparisons are important and often ignored, Impact comparisons as well. There
needs to be a decision calculus set up in the final rebuttals – you can still win the round even after admitting
a solvency deficit to your CP. After the round if I need to see cards I will ask, don’t volunteer them. I’m
only going to flow what the person who should be speaking says, if your partner yells out an argument
during your speech, you have not made it. Be reasonable to each other, I’m not expecting you to treat them
like your own grandmother but some semblance of civility is nice and can help speaker points.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Silber, Marissa
University of Florida
Marissa Silber
University of Florida
Years Judging College: 4
Years Judging High School: 8
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.
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:
1. Please do not steal prep – you get ten minutes of it, there is a reason preparation time constraints exist.
2. Be nice and respectful to each other – debate should be enjoyable for the contestants, judges, and
audience! Good luck!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Smith, Brian D.
(Cathedral Prep Graduate 2002//John Carroll University Graduate 2007)
I have done some work on the topic, but I probably don’t know the intricacies of every affirmative, or how
most would be implemented in the real world. That being said, I doubt that there are many arguments that
are beyond my ability to comprehend or follow.
I will listen to kritiks but I expect the link to be rock solid, and impacts/alternative must be clearly
explained. Language K’s can be dealt with in most all occasions by apologizing.
I will not tolerate any sort of “performance”, that means: no singing, no dancing, no music, no videos, no
props…this is POLICY DEBATE, not duo-interp. I’m not Eddy Warner or Bill Shanahan, so don’t waste
my time with that garbage. I will seriously sign my ballot and leave the room.
I’m all about T / CP / DA / Case. I’m not crazy about super-technical (semantic) topicality arguments (spec
arguments particularly). Grammar arguments are nice. If the case is really abusive or blatantly not topical,
go for T.
Impact Analysis: This is probably the most important part of the debate. I weigh impacts by multiplying
probability (x) magnitude (timeframe is more of a tie-breaker for competing impacts) so… if the
affirmative wins an uncontested advantage that claims to save 1,000,000 people from contracting AIDS,
and the negative wins a bad politics DA with nuclear war impact, I would prefer to vote for the Aff (and
expect that the 2AR to say) that the 100% chance of saving a million people with a logical policy is a better
option than rejecting this policy because of a .00001% chance that it causes a nuclear war. I LIKE SMART
ARGUMENTS THAT HOLD A MODICUM OF TRUTH IN THE REAL WORLD. I would rather the
negative go for a solid case turn/takeout that is straight up true, than to extend a pipedream disadvantage
because the aff mishandled it or has no cards against it. I want debaters to explain to me why their
arguments are true, the less you leave for me to interpret the less bias is involved.
Theory: In round abuse would be nice, I think conditionality is bad but can be convinced that it is good. I
like it when teams run counterplans unconditionally. If you run a conditional counterplan and have every
intention of going for it in the 2NR, you’re a douche. I tend to favor arguments regarding education /
fairness.
I like when debaters are strategic, and they use cross-ex to strengthen their arguments in the debate. It’s
always nice to see a team concede an opponents argument on 1 flow to strengthen their position on another
flow etc…
Cross-ex is binding.
Try to be nice to each other, unless you really don’t like who you’re debating. You can poke fun at your
opponents and their arguments, and be funny without being a dick about it (a fine line that I’m sure I’ve
crossed too many times).
I will rarely call for evidence, but will if necessary.
A well explained analytic argument will beat a card without a warrant 100% of the time.
I expect you to be loud and clear, if I cannot flow you, you will know immediately. I flow everything I can,
not just tags. Try to slow down on theory / T if possible.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Smith, Darren
Centerville High School
Some words of wisdom to heed:
In my heart of hearts, I would classify myself as a policy maker, but I realize that I am unlikely to hear this
too often. I will listen to other arguments.
I am not the fastest flow in the world. I try to get everything that I can, but if you are too fast, I won’t get
everything.
I will only say clear a couple of times before I stop flowing someone. It would behoove you to look up
every so often to make sure that I getting the arguments.
I will protect the 2NR. If I can’t draw a line from the 1AR to the 2AR or the 2AR arguments are not
predictable, I am going to protect the 2NR.
Cross-ex should be between the two people that are actually supposed to talking. I don’t mind questions of
clarification…, but don’t make your partner look like a tool by taking it over. It can’t help either of your
points.
I don’t look at a lot of evidence. I really only call for evidence if the piece of evidence is in question or if I
want to get the cites. If I do look at the evidence, you better make sure it says what you claimed that it said.
Be nice to each other. Nothing worse than a debate where I feel uncomfortable.
Critical Arguments
I am willing to vote on critical arguments, but I will be the first to admit that I am not always proud of that.
I am willing to be open to them because our teams run them and that only seems fair to me. I am not deep
in the literature. I will listen to the arguments made by both teams and evaluate them accordingly. I need a
lot of good impact calculus and I really think that the overviews need to somewhat slower. It is hard
enough to get everything you want me to get in the 1 minute tags and with the made-up words. I think that
the better critiques have specific links.
Topicality
I don’t mind a good topicality debate. I know that I won’t hear many good topicality debates though.
Realize that I am not a fan of the ten second INC shells. I think that you need to do some valid setup, but it
does not have to be a two minute shell. Offense and defense are necessary components to answer and
defend interpretations.
Theory
I don’t mind a good theory debate either. I think that these types of debates need some development. As a
result, I am unlikely to vote on the 10 second cheap shot in the block or the 1AR. If you want my vote,
develop the argument. Nothing worse when there is a 10 second cheap shot in the block, ten seconds of
answer in the 1AR and then the 2NR spend five minutes on it.
Impact Calculus
Very important to me. They really set up how I think that you are viewing the rounds and more
importantly, how you want me to view the round. Be clear about what you are winning and losing and
make sure to make the necessary comparisons. Not doing this really can help the other side if they are
doing this in your absence.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Smith, Geoff
Affiliation=Weston/Harvard
School Strikes=Weston
CXPhilosophy=
Debate Background – I debated 4 years at Weston High in Massachusetts and I am now in my second year
of debate for Harvard. I have done very little research on this topic (Africa), only tournament time work
with Weston.
Topicality – My personal belief is that the aff has to be topical, and thus I’m perfectly willing to vote on T.
However, I’m no inflexible in this regard and if you win the argument that you don’t have to be topical, I’ll
vote for you (in the context of the t debate), but it’s gonna be a lot of work to convince me to vote aff
because T is exclusionary violence. To win a T debate on the neg, I expect a good debate of standards and I
likely default to a competing interpretation framework, though I’m not necessarily convinced that’s best for
debate. Stupid T arguments and answers drive me nuts and probably cost you points, especially: C/I only
my case is topical, RVIs etc.
Counterplans / Disads – Run ‘em, my preferred place as a 2N.
K’s – I’ll vote on them and I have a pretty good familiarity with most of the major arguments, though not
from deploying them but from answering them. My senior year of high school featured a lot of the K. I
generally think the aff does a poor job answering it, especially through on over reliance on a framework
argument that doesn’t actually mandate an aff ballot. At the same time, the neg story is often so generic,
that I have trouble pulling the trigger when the aff responds with smart, aff specific arguments, even if not
evidenced.
Theory – I err neg on theory. In High School, as a 2A, I went for theory all the time, but I’m beginning to
think the neg needs flex. I’ll still vote on Aff on theory, but especially on Dispo/Conditionality, it’ll be a
high threshold and it should be your last choice in the 2AR, not your first. The key on both sides of the
theory debate is to debate it with the same level of rigor you would a disad, impacting arguments.
End Game Analysis – the 2NR/2AR framing is very important for sending me towards resolving the round
in your favor. Invest some thought here in identifying the important issue, and it will be most rewarding to
you in the end. Failure to do so leaves me to assign importance to various issues and for me to decide the
pivotal issue.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Strauss, Dave
Michigan State University
General thoughts
- I am less neg biased than I used to be. I am still very very good for the neg. I voted neg in 55% of rounds i
judged this year. I am a little surprised that number isn't higher.
- negs win the highest percentage of rounds in front of me when the 2nr defends a counterplan with specific
solvency evidence and a disad.
- I try to protect the 2nr as much as possible. dropped arguments in the 1ar are trouble. especially
arguments why the disad turns the case
- I try to be very technical as a judge. things like "truth" and "connections" matter less for me than for other
judges.
- if one side has better cards on an argument, but the other side does a better job of evidence comparison, I
will defer to the side that did better evidence comparison.
- dropped arguments are true arguments, but just because an argument is dropped/true does not
automatically mean it is absolute. for instance, if the neg dropped "no threshhold" that does not mean the
risk of the disad is zero, only that there is no threshhold.
- that being said, there is a range on incredibly stupid arguments which are not impossible, but definitely
tougher in front of me. Examples include most specification arguments, some k's, death good, etc. there
was a time when i was the best judge in the world for every stupid theory cheap shot and bad T arg....that
time has passed. technical debate skills are still very very important...but having high quality materials and
good strategies is important too.
- I am very heavily in the offense/defense camp. defensive arguments can significantly reduce risk, but are
rarely absolute. this is true both for theory and substantive arguments.
- I kind of hack out for try or die. its the one offsetting factor in my general neg hack status. beating try or
die requires either a) a good time frame argument b) a HARM related defensive argument or counterplan or
c) denying that the impact results in extinction - if extinction is truly 100% inevitable, and the time frame is
quick, you will likely lose, even if you win a big risk of a disad or a large solvency takeout. the flip side of
this is if the neg wins 100% chance of a link and impact to a disad that results in quick extinction, then
uniqueness becomes largely irrelevant.
CP stuff
- most cp theory objections are QUITE difficult in front of me.
- cp/perm theory other than dispo/conditionality is always a reason to reject the argument not the team so
long as a team makes that argument.
- ultra generic counterplans which compete on the certainty of plan (condition, consult cps) are tougher to
theoretically defend than other cp's. if i were debating, i would not be "excited" about going for this theory
argument in front of me...but i would not be afraid to either.
- both the aff and neg must have an offensive reason to prefer their interpretation
- if you are aff, the best way to defend a theory argument is to have a counterinterpretation of what the neg
can do/counterplans they can run which solves most of the negs offense.
- most theory debates are won by comparisons/reasons your offense comes first.
- negs get away with defending lots of theoretically suspicious cps because the neg makes 15 arguments on
theory and the aff drops a few.
- if debated equally by both sides, cp's probably must be both textually and functionally competitive
Kritik stuff
- if you are aff, and you do not defend enactment of your plan, or defend your plan in context of the rest of
your speech act, or do not have a plan, you should strike me.
- i am worse for the k than i was a few years ago. I am still at least ok for the k if you are neg. this is mostly
because i am great for the neg, not because i'm good for the k.
- most times affs lose on the k because the neg makes a lot of different reason why the k comes first (turns
the case, alt solves the case, ontology 1st, reps 1st, methodology 1st, no value to life, etc - and then the aff
drops one. when the aff drops one of these arguments they almost always lose. when they don't the
frequently win.
- most times the neg loses on the k its because the alt can't solve the case or achieve its own objectives.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
most negs read alt evidence that assumes rejection on a broader scale than just the instance of the
affirmative. when the neg defends this broader alt, they have difficulties with perms, when they don't, they
have difficulties with the alt.
- i am pretty good for the aff on framework questions. this doesn't make the k impossible for the neg, but it
does mean that it is tough to win that the aff shouldn't get to defend implementation of their plan vs your k
alt.
- the aff could win a ton of k rounds in front of me on we still get to weigh our aff, your k doesn't turn it or
solve it, our impacts are fast and big, and your alt is stupid.
- it seems like most of the reason methodology comes first is because bad methods produce bad
outcomes...which seems to beg the question of the outcome....this is useful for the aff.
Topicality stuff
- i am good for the neg on T
- that being said, i am worse for the neg on stupid T arguments than i was a couple years ago, possibly
much worse.
- you must have a counterinterpretation or you will lose
- you must have an offensive reason to prefer your interpretation or you will lose.
- arguments like "reasonability" are pretty close to dead in the water.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Strickland, Helen
Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas
Slow on Tag… need synopsis, author and the date
Warrant – fast… please say "and" or "next" when moving to the next piece of evidence
Road Map after the 1 AC
Counter plans are ok
Kritiks are ok
Topicality – ok but make sure it is structured correctly
Disadvantages - ok but make sure it is structured correctly
Impact analysis needed
Do not just read evidence… be able to explain it
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Sykes, Jason
Overview




This is meant to provide a bit of insight to the process I use to make decisions unless told
otherwise by the debaters.
I view debate as comparison of competing frameworks.
I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b)
the fulfillment of the framework's demands.
Everything is open to debate.
Theory/Topicality


I believe the topic should provide fair and debatable ground. There is no difference between
"competing frameworks" and "abuse." Abuse is simply a standard for evaluating competing
frameworks.
I am generally more interested in thinking about how arguments interact than I am in determining
who won a theory debate.
Defaults/Disads


If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I usually determine the
direction of uniqueness before the link.
If forced by lack of comparison to use my own framework I will consider time frame, probability,
and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative
advocacy.
Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

I have no strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.
Kritiking




The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We
should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from
method to application.
A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest
possible world to that of the advocacy."
For me all arguments are primarily questions of framework. Debaters should demonstrate how
arguments will be evaluated.
I am often more intrigued by the quality and complexity of critical research than politics cards.
Rebuttals/How to win


You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs.
This applies to impact comparison as much as anything else.
I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and
effectiveness of explanation and comparison.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Tallungan, Christina
Current Affiliation = Glenbrook North HS
School Strikes = Glenbrook North/Glenbrook South
Debates Judged on this topic: about 30
Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1991-1995); Debated
NDT/CEDA in college at USC (1995-1999); Assistant debate coach at Cal State Northridge 2003-2005;
Assistant debate coach at Glenbrook South HS Spring of 2005; Director of Debate at Glenbrook North HS
Fall of 2005-Present.
(A) Short version - weigh your arguments and establish why any of them matter. If there are interlocking
reasons why I should vote, point out these logical leaps - I am a cautious judge and should be treated as
such.
(B) Unbearably long version Bias - Yes, please.
It is not possible to be completely objective and pure rationality is unhealthy. I will do the best I can with
the time and arguments I am given. There are really only a couple things I know I am biased against and
for:
(1) Against - Complete disrespect toward anyone who is nice; no one ever has
enough “credibility” in this community to justify such actions. If there is a disrespectful dynamic in a
debate, I ALWAYS applaud (give higher speaker points to) the first person to step down and realize they
are being a jerk. Such growth and self-awareness should rewarded.
(2) For - Some cats posted on catster.com - you should check out this one:
http://www.catster.com/pet_page.php?i=291335
(3) Against - Fear to engage a good debate - win or lose, you are ultimately competing to have the best
debate possible. Act like it and do not be afraid to engage in the tough debates. You obviously should make
strategic choices, but do not runaway from in-depth arguments because you think another team will be
better than you on that argument. Work harder and beat them on the argument on which she/he is
supposedly an expert. Taking chances to win debates good.
Framework Debate is what the people make of it. Despite my alleged “leftist” leaning personality, I will not summarily
decide I do not like your so-called “right-winged” arguments.
Tell me why the framework debate matters because it is not always obvious, i.e., if you win util. good then
it proves what - the round must be evaluated as if the realist consequences of a policy action are the
foremost criteria in determining the goodness of a policy? Moreover, how does winning the util. arguments
set-up ways to vote for your substantive arguments and against your opponent’s substantive arguments?
If there is a “clash of civilizations” so to speak:
If debate is a game, articulate it as such and tell me why that is the best strategy in a debate. If you see it as
a broader social project to increase diversity, do the same. Approaching these debates as competing
political methods/strategies is a good idea in my book. Stay away from being apologetic for the way that
you view debate - if you are sincerely apologetic, then you should think about this before you walk into any
round - think before you speak.
Topicality Tell me how to evaluate T. If you are running topicality and you do not do this, you are decreasing your
ability to win this argument by 52% - not really, but you are leaving yourself wide open for the other team
to win simply by articulating the framework I should use to vote for or against this argument - competing
interpretations, etc. I am not sure what my default is (I used to say competing interpretations - now I think
it is whoever is most persuasive in a coin toss).
It is most persuasive for you to tell me exactly what ground or education is lost or won in the particular
instance of the round and given the particularities of the T violation. What cases meet, what cases do not?
Why is it good to limit out some cases but not others?
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Theory Theory at top speed without any clash is pointless. There should be a way for me to evaluate why any
theory argument is important or unimportant to the overall scheme of the round. Yes - all I said here was
“clash and weigh your theory arguments.”
I am open to someone running conditionality bad if there are multiple, conflicting conditional arguments in
the 1NC. However, you have to tell what the result of the theory argument should be - do I vote against the
argument, the team?
I generally assume that it is the burden of the team running the procedural voting issue to prove that their
opponents are wrong.
Counterplans Simply, run ‘em with a good net benefit that the permutation can not solve.
There should be a discussion of what the CP can and can not solve. Then there should a be a discussion of
how one wins the CP weighing out the impacts that the CP does and does not solve, i.e., if the CP solves
only part of the case and the neg. is relying on winning the case turns to neutralize or garner offense against
the parts of the case it does not solve, then the negative should make this explicit. What happens if the neg.
wins the CP and some risk of a net benefit, but loses the case turns that were meant to neutralize the parts
of the case the CP did not solve?, etc.
Conditional/Consult CP’s vs. Permutation do the CP - this is a tricky debate. I have voted on both sides of
this argument at different times. Read “Debate theory” above.
Strategy/Coherence It is important to me that you tell me how to use arguments in an interactive fashion - do not assume I am
making the logical leaps in my head. If you want me to look at the K as a case turn and a net benefit to the
CP then that needs to come out of your mouth.
Kritiks They should have clear impacts (is it case turn, external impacts, etc.?). Too often there is no discussion of
what is meant by the terminal impacts of a critique (violence or tyranny anyone?) or how the kritik
highlights a root case of the affirmative harms. A team which engages in the grounds/specific mechanisms
and distinctions of the evidence will go far in this debate if their assessment of the evidence is correct and
favorable to their side of the debate. For example, how is capitalism the root cause of the specific war
scenarios the affirmative highlights in the 1AC?
There does not have to be an alternative. If there is, realize alternatives function as floating PICS most of
the time. Again, I appreciate an in-depth debate about the specific grounds for why an alternative can or
can not solve for the case impacts. To answer a generic kritik alternative, a team should ask specific
questions about its solvency given the specificity of the 1AC evidence.
General Fast, clear and to the point. If you are not that smart, then don’t waste your brain power making jokes in the
debate. Some people are good at this activity because they work really hard, not because they were born
with innate debate talent - it is good to recognize such things about oneself and act accordingly. I respect
hard work.
Realize “evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb” - working at GBN has changed me.
*SIDEBAR: Texts of CP/Perm/Alternatives - the texts of permutations, counterplans, and alternatives
should be clear. I always go back and check the texts of these items if there is a question of a solvency
deficit or competition. However, I do feel it is the burden of the opposing team to bring up such an
argument for me to vote on it - i.e., unless it is a completely random round, the opposing team needs to
make the argument that the text of the CP means there is a significant solvency deficit with the case, or the
affirmative is overstating/misconstruing the solvency of a permutation because the text only dictates X, not
Y, etc.
In evaluating each and every debate - I won’t promise to try, but I’ll try to try. Good luck!
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Tarloff, Elliot
At the outset, I should say that I've only judged 4 debates this year and they were all at the college level.
I've also been out of the activity for a while, so I might be a little behind all of you in terms of topic
knowledge and argument evolution over the course of the year. Take that into consideration in terms of
highly specific topicality arguments, sneaky PICs, etc. I'm confident I'll be able to keep up, but you might
want to slow down a little and explain a few arguments more simply than you have had to at recent
tournaments.
Topicality: I think the affirmative needs to defend a topical advocacy. I tend to view topicality as a
jurisdictional voting issue, but I won't always default to the most limiting interpretation if the affirmative
presents a reasonable interpretation of the topic. I know almost nothing about public health assistance in
Sub-Saharan Africa, so I may be a little lost on what the topicality arguments are at first, but that should not
discourage you from running and going for a good violation. Like other arguments, I believe that good T
debates should feature evidence and comparisons from both teams.
Critical Affs: I am happy to listen to critical affirmatives, but I'm more likely to be sympathetic if it's
grounded in a topical statement of advocacy. I don't have a strong opinion about the traditional framework
question. I tend to think that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan, but that's a
debateable question. As with most theoretical questions, I think that this comes down to questions of
ground.
Critiques: Ks are a really important component of the negative arsenal. I probably prefer traditional
disadvantage/counterplan/case debates, but I've judged and debated in a lot of K rounds. I prefer really
specific criticisms to generic style statism, but especially against new affirmatives, I totally understand why
sometimes the old Martin file might look pretty appealing. I think that K debates often end up being too
easy to judge because the affirmative lets the negative get away with a theoretically abusive alternative. If
the Aff lets the neg adovcate a floating PIC or avoid responsibility for the status quo, they're usually
in a lot of trouble. That being said, I'm also probably a bit of a hack for a persuasive 2AR.
Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I've been thinking about this a lot recently, though to be honest, I've never
judged a non-traditional debate round. On the one hand, I seriously value the contribution of non-traditional
college debate teams, and think that there's something significant that's happening to our community that
shouldn't be ignored or silenced. On the other hand, my priority as a judge is to ensure competitive equity.
If you're gong to defend a non-traditional interpretation of debate, and the negative goes for framework,
you'll need to convince me that your interpretation of debate allows for a predictable and fair division of
ground. You don't necessarily have to demonstrate that your interpretation gives the negative the ground
that it wants, but you do have to win that there is room for argumentative clash in your framework.
Decision calculus: This question is really up to the debaters. I'll default to evaluating the comparative risk
of impacts, if not directed otherwise.
Theory: I like theory debates if done well. I think that PICs and Dispo are probably fine. My gut tells me
that consult CPs are probably illegitimate but to the GBN and Colleyville debaters out there, I have never
once heard a compelling argument why this is actually true. I also think that it's hard to prove why these
arguments are voting issues and not just reasons to reject the CP. I'm probably slightly aff biased in
terms of conditionality, but this is obviously case dependent. I think that object fiat (either object of the
plan or the advantage) is illegitimate. Against brand new affiramtives, my threshold is much higher for aff
theory. Affirmatives can make theory arguments more effective by combining theory arguments and having
unique reasons why the combination is worse. A conditional PIC is probably worse than the sum of its parts
but you obviously need a warrant for why this is true. Similarly, I think negative's can gain leverage on
theory debates by having "counter-interpretations" that solve offense.
D/as and Case and Counterplans: This is probably the type of debate I'm most prepared to judge. For all of
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
these arguments, the trickier the better. If the disadvantage turns the case, that's particularly damning,
but the negative can make these arguments much stronger by having evidence or a real warrant. I should
admit that I do believe that good defense can beat a disadvantage. A dropped real "no link" argument really
does mean "no link." On the other hand though, affiramtives should have as much offense as possible. The
best 2As should unload with an add-on and turns to a d/a, and theory.
Demeanor: I'm sure you all know this, but don't be rude or unnecessarily aggressive in a mean-spirited sort
of way. Tag-team CX is fine, but be respectful to your partner and the other team. Being funny is good.
Making jokes (at your own, your partner's, or the other team's expense) is great if it's all in good fun.
Getting up to the line and not crossing it is difficult, especially in break and elim rounds. Try to relax and
enjoy and experience and the opportunity to visit the fine setting of the bustling metropolis of Lexington
Kentucky. Every year, I swear I'll never go back to the TOC, and yet, here I am again :-) Congratulations to
everyone and have fun. The TOC is totally awesome. Good luck.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Tate, Tara
I have coached actively in high school debate for yeasevn years. Prior to this, I coached at Colleyville;
before that... I coached at the University of North Texas for two years and debated for Emporia State
University (KS) in college. I usually judge around 130 rounds in a given year and I actively cut cards, so I
am usually familiar with the literature base.
The “macro” level: I am involved in debate due to (1) the community and (2) the competition (in that
order). I enjoy judging debates in which both of those values are exhibited. “The community” aspect is
shown in regards to treating your partner and your opponents with respect and actually interacting with me
as one of the participants in the round (i.e. joking around with me, talking with me instead of at me, etc.).
“The competition” stems from my love of strategy innovation that tends to take place outside of the actual
round and in the research. This statement is probably the most telling of where some of my defaults lie in
regards to arguments (which will be listed in the “micro” level section below).
In my mind, tabula rasa is a myth…I try to evaluate the round based on the arguments articulated. But
“evaluate” is a subjective term…
If I had to pick my ideal debate round, it would be where the Negative ran a very well-researched PIC that
was specific to the Affirmative plan/case area (i.e. picking out of “corps” and running the Corps K does
NOT fall into that category) and the Affirmative had offensive justification for what the Negative CP is
testing…
The “micro” level: These are the defaults that I come into a round with on particular arguments. Debaters
that ignore these defaults will find it more difficult (not impossible, mind you) to pick up my ballot than
debaters that don’t ignore these insights.
Topicality – it is no secret…I am not a fan. I genuinely believe that most negative Topicality interpretations
arbitrarily and artificially limit out the Affirmative. Keep your fifteen-second T shells in your boxes. My
default is that Affirmatives should be reasonably topical…this is probably one area where offense/defense
is not as crucial to me, in comparison to other areas. I do find myself voting Negative on T much more than
my defaults would predict, because Affirmatives will not engage on why the framework of competing
interpretations is bad, why limits are bad, why bidirectionality is good, etc… I guess I ultimately find that
many T violations are more arbitrary and unpredictable than the Affs that the Neg is trying to exclude.
Counterplans – rounds are generally better when they are in them. I definitely lean negative in regards to
PICs and dispositionality in regards to theory debates. You should avoid running your CPs conditionally. I
also question why more negatives don’t run their CPs (especially their well-researched PICs)
unconditionally. An Affirmative will need to win some offense on a net-benefit if they do not win a
solvency deficit on the CP (unless it is one heck of a defensive argument…)
Disadvantages – I evaluate links vs. link turns through a uniqueness filter first. Impact analysis, starting in
the block, is imperative. Kudos to the Negatives that can articulate ways that the disadvantage implicates
the case debate. If you go for a DA in a round, however, you will need to win some case mitigation or a CP
that solves part of the case. Affirmatives can, in the end, still win a round if they are winning some
mitigation on the disad but winning 100% risk of their case impact.
Case debate – a lost art…I treat advantages like I do disadvantages. Affirmatives often overclaim their
advantages and the 2NR will say nothing. Negatives can win a lot of mitigation on the case with internal
link arguments, alternate causalities, etc.
Critical arguments – I like very case-specific criticisms…whether the specificity is from the evidence or
from a good debater that spins specific link stories. I find myself more and more wondering how the
framework for the K implicates the case debate. A negative can win the link level of the K, but still lose
because (1) the alternative does not solve for the case or (2) there is no external impact. Very rarely will I
find that winning a link on a criticism proves zero solvency from the affirmative’s solvency mechanism.
Other things:
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
(1) It takes little argumentation for a team to be able to beat Malthus in front of me, especially if the “death
checks” tend to be individuals that the majority is oppressing in the status quo…for example, tortured
refugees and womyn dying from eating disorders from a patriarchal society are not death checks.
(2) I only write down the words said by the individual who is supposed to be speaking. If your partner is
prompting you during the 1AR, I will only write down the words after the 1AR reiterates the statement.
The same is true for performance affs in which the speakers split the speeches (although I assume this can
be up for debate within the round).
(3) Sexist and other oppressive language should be avoided. Despite popular belief, though, this is not an
absolute voter for me. I did my masters’ thesis on feminist rhetoric and still catch myself inadvertently
using sexist language from time to time. There is definitely room for a team that inadvertently uses this
language to argue why they should not lose the round.
(4) Cross-reading and clipping cards is a sure-fire way to cause you to get little to no speaker points and,
possibly, a loss in a round. Debaters that do this frequently do not realize that certain voice inflections
indicate when they are skipping over words as they are trying to find random words to read. I also pay
attention to text of cards and reading sentences that have a noun but no verb is also a good indicator you are
doing the dirty deed. I thoroughly love what I do and I enjoy judging debate rounds when the debaters do
what they can to make the debate rounds enjoyable for all the individuals participating. Hopefully, you will
fall into that category and I will get the pleasure of watching you in action. :)
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Timmons, Aaron
Affiliation = Greenhill
Welcome to the Tournament of Champions! It is an accomplishment to qualify and get to compete at this
tournament and you should all be proud and aware of that accomplishment. For many of you this might be
your last tournament and you need to be prepared to do as well as you can but keeping the big picture in
perspective. Take time out to enjoy the company of your friends and coaches this weekend. In addition,
take a minute to thank all those that helped you get here. They deserve the shout out!
As a bit of an overview, I am not a tabula rasa judge. In fact, I am told that I am becoming pretty
conservative on a number of issues. For example, I think debaters should keep their clothes on. If you need
to speak out because the body has been "sexualized" by the patriarchy, do it in another forum and not in a
debate I am judging. I am not a critic that thinks judges must accept everything. If I have issues with your
argument style I will tell you immediately and probably give you the opportunity for a "do - over". If you
chose not to you will lose most likely. Also, I don't think you can just push play and have music/poetry etc.
make all of your arguments for you. I think debaters must make their own arguments. If you can persuade
me otherwise and Greenhill debates you at this years TOC we will have some special guests making some
arguments when we debate you! If part of your routine is a dialogue between you and your partner you
might want to re-ask the question in a rhetorical fashion in your speech otherwise it seems to me you have
given half a speech, made half an argument and will probably get half of the speaker points you would
normally. I generally think the proliferation of specification arguments is silly (A-spec, O spec, P- spec et
al). If asked, the affirmative might ought explain how the plan is implemented
Theory
I think that I am a critic of argument with latent policymaking tendencies. I am flexible enough to adapt to
other “paradigms” as agreed to by the debaters as long as it maintains competitive equity with other teams
competing and is consistent with the philosophy of the tournament (i.e. no 30 point paradigm rounds or
double wins). . Counterplans must be net beneficial. I find that many debaters are confused about the
difference between a net benefit (a reason the plan is bad, ie a disad, kritikal offense or case turn), and an
advantage to the counterplan. I will listen to all counterplans although my instinct is that many counterplans
run this year are not competitive or theoretically illegitimate (con-con, consultation, veto, delay
blah.blah.blah.). The problem is that the affirmative usually doesn’t a good grasp on theory issues,
especially competition. Please don't take this bias to mean I wont vote on these counterplans. In fact, I think
they might be a necessary part of the negative arsenal. I think that a theory, to be fair, ought to be
reciprocal. Make sure the permutation in the 2ac is clear and the same as the one in the 2ar. A text would be
nice. If no text exists the debaters should agree as to what the perm is before a begin making a decision
after the debate. I do not like to hear theory debates, which are initiated, not for the purpose of checking
arguably abusive arguments, but done solely as a substitute for you fully researching answers to sweet case
turns or what ever. Given the abusive nature of certain arguments in understand and I will do my best to
evaluate those arguments but frankly, I would rather do just about anything else during that two-hour
period. Many of these rounds digress into 3-4 word arguments in the 2ac or 2nc and are delivered at 300
words per minute. Not persuasive to this critic. I will not sit and read through all of your blocks. I will do
my best to make a call based on the arguments I understand and am most persuaded by.
Topicality
I think the negative has a realistic chance of winning T based on some of the cases that have been run thus
far this year. In fact, I don’t think some cases are close to being topical. The problem is that most negatives
run 7- 15 second T violations with made up definitions and/or interpretations, which are not contextual in
the literature. A 1nc, which is a little slower in delivery which explains why the plan (as written) is not
topical and begins making a comparison of interpretations will gain a lot of credibility in my book. I think
your case area can arguably be one that is topical but you can (and should) still lose based on the fact that
your plan is written in a nontopical manner. I do not think the most limiting interpretation is necessarily
good for debate. A case list of what cases you allow versus what they allow AND how that impacts
predictability and ground will help. Articulate specific examples of what arguments you cant run based on
the wording of the plan. Explain what they do and what they justify.
Politics
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
I (as someone put it) am not a member of the “cult of uniqueness” in evaluating politics debates. I think
way too much emphasis is placed on that genre of argument and way too much credibility is given as to the
links, internal links and impact evaluation by many critics. I cringe when I hear judge’s say, “no real link or
internal link exists but (despite the case is conceded) think a risk always exists”. In my humble opinion that
is silly. That having been said I understand the nature of the game I will and have voted on politics in big
debates over the years (many this year). However, some cases just don’t link. I am very confident inlooking
at you at the end of the round and saying you have NO link if one truly doesn’t exist…even if the
affirmative has no offense. It does behoove the aff to have a little offense though. It pleases me when risk
and impact comparisons are made in the round. Make warranted arguments about why the link turn is better
than the link etc. Weigh the impacts of the case versus the disad. Explain specific warrants in evidence.
The K
I will listen to this style of argument and if debated correctly I even enjoy this mode of debating. I deplore
teams that run generic critical arguments without application to the plan/presentation/framework of the aff.
Specific kritiks (or specific links stories) are appreciated. "They use the state they lose" is NOT persuasive
whatsoever. Permutations function to test the link to the plan. Ultimately it should be a question of the plan
action and whether it uniquely links somehow to the criticism and HOW THE AFFIRMATIVE MAKES
THINGS WORSE. Discursive kritiks can be effective yet I am sympathetic to an apology and a
discontinuation of the objectionable language. The aff needs to answer the K with theoretical and
substantive arguments. I have become a real fan of framework debates. If you think you can roll with fiat
good then go for it. Both teams should explain the framework in which I should evaluate their arguments
and make comparisons, if need be, in illustrating how you win. Performative affirmatives are cool but they
need to relate to the topic.
Other Things
I might read a few cards but I will not reconstruct the debate for you. Point out in your speeches which
cards I should read by highlighting the warrants in the cards. I will NOT take 1 to 2 hours to decide your
round. I am NOT a fan of the practice of decisions that take longer than the debate itself. This practice
makes intervention inevitable. I like to be persuaded. A Ryanesque rebuttal will get you high points. Speed
is cool but I am not a fan of the spew down, unintelligible, spitting, double breathing, and “spewtron”
approach. No judge really likes to be spat at. Don’t cross read or clip cards or lie about what you read in the
speech. I will ask for the cards I want, don’t volunteer them. Don't be rude in CX or dominate your partner
in CX or their speeches. If you have specific questions please ask.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Tribble, Nathan
College Preparatory School
Please be nice.
Theory
Make sure you explain the implications of your interpretations. If you can avoid making theory
debates simply inconclusive you'll be rewarded.
Framework
I see debate as a game of conventions rather than rules per se. That said, i think a lot of people
"cheat." And the only thing worst than cheating is losiing because you let someone get away
with it. If you think the aff needs to defend a plan, call them out. Pushing the "rules" of debates
to include/exclude certain arguments is a strategy some work and some don't.
Topicality.
I love these debates. I think most topicality debates seem shallow. You should focus on the
implication of your interpretation as a whole. I find myself inclined toward competing
interpretations because these lines of argument are rarely questioned. That really just means they
should be.
Counterplans
I really like creative pics. Strategic counterplanning is rewarded well.
Critique business
Plese just make the debate simple. I think most people get so obscure in their use of language
that these debates are painful. Creative metaphors and specific examples grounded teh context of
the debate is a very effective tool with me.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Turner, John
T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like
interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are
important. “Framework” should basically always be T instead. I find most framework arguments
unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T
interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while
providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are a hard sell (can’t remember the last time I
voted aff on one).
Disad/CP—I judged a few of these this year. I wouldn’t mind judging more. I’m unlikely to assess
uniqueness/link in absolute terms. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give defensive
arguments more credit than many judges.
K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates
where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that
don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or
permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to
not being assholes in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes
from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that
aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either
side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags.
Smart analytical arguments get a lot of weight.
Theory—I am biased in favor of conditionality. I am biased strongly against aff choice. Unlikely to vote on
cheap shot claims.
Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the
2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible
evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely
dislike random unqualified internet evidence.
Don’t be evasive in cross-ex. “If you make that argument, we’ll answer it” is probably my least favorite
phrase in debate.
I think I’m less grumpy than previous years—still working on that one. I know everyone freaks out at the
NDT so I’ll do my best not to add to it. I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your
humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is
probably lower than average (only 1 29 this year).
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Turoff, Corey
I'll start with saying that none of what is written below is carved in stone. I have tried to illustrate some
patterns I've noticed in how my decisions go down but I hope that you go into this round knowing that I
will listen to anything you want to say.
Topicality- I like to decide these debates based on a comparison between two interpretations. This means
that if you don't meet the neg's violation, then you better have a counter-interpretation combined with
offensive responses to the neg's interpretation.
Counterplans- Love 'em. Here is my caveat for all you affirmative teams- I vote negative a lot of the time
when an agent counterplan and a process net benefit are in the 2NR. I have a hard time buying affirmative
solvency arguments to these agent counterplans and the sheer time advantage the negative has generally
allows them to win the disad. My advice is to find: a)extremely high tech solvency arguments against
the counterplan, b) good offense against the CP, or c) the best turns and uniqueness args against the net
benefit. If you have good disads to the CP, then you could be in very good shape.
Critiques- Yes, I did run these a lot while I debated but that does not mean that this is the best argument
type to run in front of me. You will find that I have done the reading necessary to provide a good base of
understanding of many critical arguments but you better have a sweet alternative or a sweet defense of why
you don't need one because I find that I vote aff a lot because of their ability to characterize the situation as
try or die. In general, I see a critique just like I see disads; whoever controls alternative solvency for the
case/critical offense will probably win the debate. This is not say that you need an alternative..
Theory- Here's my major issue when I judge debates. I guess I must have some sort of flowing deficiency
but I have problems getting theory arguments down when you are speaking top speed or near it. I tend to be
a little conservative on these questions, meaning that the team that brought up the theory argument will
have an uphill battle to win my ballot. Here's a quick rundown on my general dispositions which have the
potential to change because of what is said in the debate: PICs are good, dispositionality is good,
conditionality is okay but may not be, alternatives don't need a text, critique alternatives can be aff
inclusive to a point, there is international FIAT and thus also negative FIAT, sever perms suck, instrinsic
perms are stupid but can be defended, double solvency for a permutation has no impact or net benefit
qualities, and yes, topicality is a voter (biggest shock of the year I'm sure). Oh yeah, performative
contradictions are good and do not justify too much conditionality.
AFFIRMATIVES- In general, you'll win if you win a try or die scenario that could outweigh the disad. You
have to contest the alternative's ability to solve your case or you are done. I think your solvency claims
against the counterplan are whack when you clearly haven’t thought them completely through. Go for as
much offense as you can in a counterplan debate and then have as much of a cohesive story as possible in
the 2AR.
NEGATIVES- In general, run a counterplan that solves the case and you will win. Run an alternative that
solves the case and you'll win. T is always an option.
BOTH- If you give an impact comparison and the other team doesn't, you are money. If
your impact comparison makes no sense and their's does, you are probably going to
lose. Don't steal prep. Most importantly, I try to read as few cards as possible. I’d rather the warrants were
debated out during the final rebuttals. Do not leave me with a stack of evidence, expecting me to recreate
the debate from the ground up, and then get angry when I decide you were wrong. The key is to have a
good time in the debate and don't be rude. Every so often I had a problem with my attitude and so I know
what you are going through but speaking from experience, it is not worth it. Be cool and your speaker
points will be good, don't worry.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Vint, Kyle
Cedar Rapids Washington 06'
Iowa 10'
Four years policy debate in high-school.
Sophomore college debater.
Policy Philosophy:
Critiques: I am not very well read on a lot of critique literature. That being said it does not mean that I
won't vote on critiques or understand the argument that you are making. For me good K debates focus on
link debates with specific examples. You don't need an alternative. If you win the way you presented your
argument is in itself a good idea and the way the aff presented theirs is bad, then you will probably win the
debate.
Disads: They are good, and I enjoy them. The link and internal link are the essential part of the debate. It is
more important to make a coherent story for why your disad is true than to proliferate a bunch of two card
link stories in the negative block. Impact calculus shouldnt just be magnitude, timeframe, and probability
with a one sentence blip after each. It should be a short story why your impact claim is more preferable and
how it specifically interacts with the affirmative.
Counterplans: I also enjoy them. Agent counterplans are fine and dandy but it is more fun to judge a more
thought out counterplan that interacts with the specifics of the aff. Counterplans should be competitive. I
think that Consult counterplans, normal means pics, etc. are probably not competitive, but can be persuaded
otherwise.
Topicallity- I think topicallity debates are generally underdeveloped and miss the boat on impact stories. In
round abuse or ridiculous examples of what the aff justifies are far less persuasive then an explanation
about good topic education that is lost by the affs interpretation. T is probably a debate of competiting
interpretations, but the aff can win that it isn't.
Theory: I am probably a little neg biased on theory questions. I also view theory debates as a question of
competing interpretations (which side is best for overall debate). If you are going for theory it needs to be a
well developed and warranted argument, not simply a game of who has dropped more. Theory arguments
like multiple permutations bad may end careers at the toc but are not persuasive and can be beat by one
affirmative argument (they are a test of competition and not a voting issue). ASPEC and OSPEC are cool
(really cool) with me, and are probably a good time trade-off for the negative.
Do what you want, have fun, run what you are comfortable with. If you are going to be a prick, at least be a
funny one so it doesn't look as bad.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Voss, Jonathan
Sheboygan North High School
Sheboygan, WI
My argumentative preferences are really pretty irrelevant—the debaters in the round should make
arguments that they are comfortable defending. There’s no argument/type of argument/type of debate that I
*won’t* accept (however, please read below, because I do enjoy certain arguments more). As a caveat
though, I find the best debates occur when the participants identify and highlight the ways in which
different arguments clash; there’s nothing more frustrating than a debate where arguments aren’t compared
against one another. At the end of the debate, I will try to intervene as little as possible; this means that it’s
critical that the debaters frame the debate for me in the final rebuttals. My tendency toward antiintervention, then, means I will evaluate the round in the manner in which I was instructed by the debaters.
If you don’t have time to read this in its entirety, here’s the abridged version; I personally prefer good ole
fashioned policy debates, but I even MORE fanatically like to hear debates where the students have a
heightened understanding of their arguments. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT ME, it’s about THE
DEBATERS. Please don’t amend your strategy for me—do what you’re most comfortable doing and do it
well. Like most critics, I will most enjoy adjudicating a debate in which all participants debate smart and
debate hard—intelligent/tricky strategies are phenomenal and make it FAR easier for me to justify
spending my Friday nights at high schools around the nation. All the debater really has to do is convince
me that his/her side has achieved victory. What you do to win is up to you; I have the propensity to vote on
anything so long as I am persuaded to do so. In order to persuade me, it’s really helpful if you impact
whatever argument it is that you think can win you the debate. All debates are impact debates insofar as all
arguments (policy, theory, critical, activist, performance et al) need to have some sort of contextual
implication—impacts are really just strategic tools debaters use to sway the ballot. I enjoy ‘big’ debates,
but racing to the bottom is usually a really bad idea; your impacts comparisons are only as good as your
explanations of the rest of the argument. Speed is more than cool—debate thrives on fast forms of
argumentation. I may be from Wisconsin, but I’m not old school. Questions? Read on or ask me.
Speed: Go as fast as you want. If I can’t understand you, I’ll say ‘clear’ at times that won’t interfere with
your speech. This shouldn’t be an issue though—I have yet to find the debater I can’t flow.
Speaker point scale: operates as follows—25 or below means you were excessively/unnecessarily rude,
unethical, or didn’t seriously compete in the debate; a 26 is an indication that you had comprehension
problems or grossly mis-handled argument(s) in the round; a 27-28.5 is the ‘standard’ for me. I award 29’s
for debaters I feel should be in contention for a top 5 speaker award & 30’s are reserved for timeless
performances. Good arguments, persuasive rebuttals, and effective use of humor will increase your points.
Being mean, grossly mis-interpreting your own arguments, stealing prep time, changing the meaning of
evidence (e.g. President Bush is not intelligent) will force me to adjust your points accordingly.
Topicality: it’s a voter—but you should invest some time convincing me that it’s the primary voter.
Generally, the 2nr will need to articulate a round-specific impact to the topicality debate (although it
wouldn’t be too difficult to convince me that potential abuse is a voting issue). I’m usually more likely to
prefer evidenced/grammatically correct interpretations.
Theory: I really enjoy high-tech theory debates. The more specific your objection, the better. Similar to
topicality, I’m most likely to vote on theory if you can prove in-round abuse. However, “it’s not what you
do, it’s what you justify” type arguments can be compelling. As a side note, I believe that too many teams
rely on theory as their number one option. Make sure you’re making policy-level arguments too—failure to
do so will make your theoretical objections look less credible.
Procedurals, Objections, Assorted Gripes: I’m probably slightly more likely to vote on these arguments
than other critics IF THE PLAN TEXT MANDATES AN OBJECTION. However, that does not mean that
I enjoy deciding rounds on procedural complaints—the only thing in debate I dislike more than whining is
unnecessary whining. Plan text should probably be specific enough that the negative has specific
disad/counterplan ground, but not so specific that they can no-link every offensive position. I suppose my
only expectation is that the affirmative advocate a reasonable plan text that fosters an educational debate.
Critiques: I have no problem with these arguments, but I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not particularly
well-versed with some of the obscure literature. I prefer to hear very specific links to the plan, but I
understand the need for generic critique links against obscure/cheating affirmatives. The implication of the
K should be explained very thoroughly to me. Does it turn the case? Does my ballot have a specific role? In
which framework do the implications operate? I also find that there’s an increasing trend in current
debate—the role of the alternative seems to rollback on an almost weekly basis. If you’re going for the K,
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
please explain to me what I am voting for—If you’re hoping to beat the K, disads to the alternative and
reasons the alternative can’t solve are sort of crucial. As a general rule, the alternative and permutations to
the alternative should have texts, but I won’t make this an issue unless the other team makes it one. Again,
I cannot stress enough—EXPLAIN WHAT I AM VOTING FOR; only telling me to Traverse the Fantasy
or Engage in Psychoanalytic Resistance is about as helpful as speaking to me in Mandarin (I don’t know a
lick of Chinese).
Counterplans: are fantastic. I personally think that specific counterplans that solve the case and claim
intelligent net benefits are vital to our activity. However, don’t let my argumentative opinions influence
your strategies. In the event that one does plan to go for a counterplan in front of me, the negative needs to
win that the counterplan solves the case and a risk of a net benefit OR needs to win that the counterplan is
strategically better than the plan. The affirmative needs to win offense against the counterplan—unless it’s
the best defense in the history of debate, defense alone likely won’t be enough to swing my vote. My
explanation of my theory tendencies is also applicable here—I’ll evaluate specific objects as they are made.
Don’t Cheat: my love for counterplans is intense—but ONLY because they create clash and test the
viability of the plan. Arguments like consult, veto, delay, etc. are bad for the activity. I’ve still voted for
these, and probably will again. But I won’t enjoy it, and I have a REALLY low threshold for theoretical
objections to them.
Disads: Links and internal links need to be unique. If they’re non-unique enough, I have no problem
granting zero risk of a disad. Implicating the case and assessing your impacts (beginning in the block) is
imperative. In order to win, negatives need a counterplan that solves some of the disad or need to win that
disad mitigates part of the case. Affirmatives that lose a disad but win 100% of the case could still win
with strategic impact analysis. In the simplest terms possible, the degree to which the plan causes the link
or turns the link is the crucial framework in which the impacts should be explained.
The Case Debate: I evaluate the case debate similar to the way I evaluate disadvantage debates (unless the
aff is critical, in which case it’s evaluated the same way I evaluate critiques). It’s important to win that you
plan solves the links to your advantages, but it’s equally as important to articulate the ways that your
advantages’ impacts interact with negative offense.
Projects/Performance: While I feel that performance-based strategies and various “projects” are valid and
innovative forms of argumentation, they invariably make the debate extremely difficult to resolve. In order
to better help me accurately assess these types of debate, I offer a recommendation from Harvard alum
Michael Klinger:
There are two major questions in debates of this type: (1) Is there a framework in which the promise of the
kritik/performance can be realized and (2) Given this, does the kritik/performance provide a reason to reject
the affirmative’s advocacy. To merely argue that one’s performance/advocacy is good or even superior to
your opponent’s does not, in and of itself, provide a reason to reject the opponent’s advocacy. You must
establish that you opponent’s advocacy undermines the effectiveness of yours’, will perpetuate some harm
that your advocacy has the capacity to mitigate if not solve, establishes or perpetuates a “world” that
excludes “more effective worlds” or some combination of the above.
Other things:
I try to come into the round with literally no biases—and I think I do a pretty respectable job. That said, I
will not morally nor strategically object to any argument.
I won’t intervene unless you make me; in rounds where two competing impact claims aren’t compared
against one another, I will most likely be forced to determine each impact’s timeframe, probability,
magnitude, etc. I don’t really “mind” doing this, per se, but understand that I might not view the impacts
the same way you do. Simply put, compare impacts and articulate clear reasons you should win—this
ensures we’re all safe from the bad feelings produced from judge intervention.
Reading Evidence—I actually do this a lot. Sometimes I read evidence because the debate requires me to
do so, and sometimes I read evidence because I’m interested in its’ content. If the debate was close enough
that I need to read evidence to resolve my decision, you’ll probably know which pieces of evidence are
relevant.
Debate is a strategic game of academic growth—as a current coach, aspiring educator and 4-year highschool debater, I firmly believe that fun, light-hearted debates are most conducive to education. Please have
fun!
This is pretty thorough, but if you have questions I encourage you to ask me before the round.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Warden, John
Chattahoochee '05, Northwestern '09
Debates Judged on Topic: 20+
I know a little bit about most of the areas of the topic having taught at camp over the summer and doing a
little bit of research during the year. I try to evaluate all debate arguments as fairly as I can without
injecting any of my own preferences of biases. I think that comparative impact calculus is extremely
important for how I decide all debates. This also applies to topicality where comparing standards and the
importance of varios impacts (fairness, etc) is critical. Sometimes there's kind of a presumption that limits
is good and a more limiting neg interpretation always wins. While there are good arguments that limits are
good, there are equally good argumetns about why a braoder topic with more aff flexibility is preferable.
The same is true about theory arguments. Evidence comparison is also very important, especially at the key
parts of the debate. A big part of that is good cross-x. Of course, evidence comparison and winning debates
is also much easier if you have good evidence and good strategies. Overall, I think that tech and the big
picture are probably close to equally important. My favorite debate to judge would be specific disads and
case turns, but I think you probably have your best chance of winning if you just go for what you're best at.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Weil, Stephen
I have a couple comments before the specifics:
1. One of, if not the, most important part of resolving the debate for me is impact calculus. Impact calculus
is more than just “DA outweighs the case” at the top of the 2NC and 2NR. You can and should “impact”
any and every important argument you go for in terms of how it wins you the debate/interacts with their
arguments. This means “our link turn outweighs their link—a) blah blah b) blah blah” or “our uniqueness
takeout is more important than the direction of the link” etc. If you compare evidence, weigh the
importance of arguments and explain your evidence instead of simply extending it by author and cite, then
there are fewer issues that are left totally in my hands when I am resolving the debate. These are the sorts
of things that decide close debates and improve your speaker points. Impact calculus is essentially telling
me how to evaluate the debate, and absent some comparison about the relative importance of competing
arguments, some “intervention” is inevitable if I have to resolve the quality of uniqueness evidence or
whatever is in question.
2. I will probably be able to figure out what you are saying. But, if I am straining to do so, I am both getting
less down on my flow and having less time to actually process your argument and understand it. If I don’t
understand an argument, I will be less able/willing to vote on it, so if something is especially important,
slow down and emphasize. Monotone speeches are a recipe for lower points.
Now, some specifics. Keep in mind that these are my feelings and not absolute criteria for evaluating a
debate.
Topicality:
A good topicality violation is one that is well and specifically impacted. When I say that a topicality
violation should be well impacted, this means that the neg wins that the aff’s interpretation excludes some
set of arguments which is essential, and not just convenient, for negative competitiveness or that they
exclude a debate about some subject in the literature which is important to the topic. What is often missing
in topicality debates is a well-developed debate about the importance of different “standards” relative to
each other, i.e. does “the ground the neg loses” hurt them more than the limitation your interpretation puts
on the aff.
What is the purpose of topicality? Is it supposed to determine which of two interpretations is better for
debate in theory, or is it supposed to ensure that the negative and affirmative are on equal enough footing to
have a debate? For me, this is the central question regarding whether I should defer to “reasonability” or
“competing interpretations” and I could be persuaded either way.
OSPEC/Subsets/Etc – Ugh.
ASPEC – Maybe, but still an uphill battle. Ask in cross-x or it’s close to a non-starter for me.
The Kritik:
As a debater, I am flexible going for either kritiks or policy arguments, and hence you should feel free to
run either in front of me. This being said, I think that most kritik arguments are absurd, but supported by
equally absurd evidence. Despite the value of rhetorically powerful evidence, a strong cross-x of the 1NC
and 2NC on alternative and impact questions can really set the tone for the debate in terms of forcing the
neg to explain what the outcome of their alternative is. I have a few more specific comments:
1. To me, the alternative is the crux of any kritik debate. The affirmative should attack the alternative, not
just in terms of its value, but also in terms of its efficacy. The negative’s alternative should not just be
good, but also achievable. However, this debate centers on what it means for me to vote
affirmative/negative (the framework). Am I voting for a world in which the alternative exists, or am I
voting negative as an intellectual in the academy/whatever? I can be persuaded to vote negative on a
“utopian” alternative if the negative frames the ballot in this way and the affirmative does not attack such a
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
framing from either a theoretical or substantive perspective.
2. Most kritik debates seem to devolve into a variety of small arguments varying from “cede the political”
to “no value to life” to “turns the case.” Please (both teams) impact these arguments in relation to one
another, and tell me why your arguments are a reason to ignore theirs/vote for you.
3. I probably have not read your K author. I probably don’t know what they are talking about. However,
there have been situations where I have had a kritik explained to me very well, and I have often been
convinced that it is actually a better argument than I thought after my gut reaction. The more you explain
your kritik, the more likely I am to vote for it. If I have no idea what you are talking about, you are in
trouble. I don’t care that the affirmative dropped “x” argument if I have no idea what that argument means.
Finally, kritiks on the affirmative. Please please please do not be vague in cross-x. You may have critical
advantages but you must defend a plan and its implementation or you are in serious topicality trouble. If
people ask you specific questions about your “framework” or the implementation of your affirmative,
answer them clearly. You should make it clear what arguments you think are “responsive” within your
framework, and how different arguments should be evaluated relative to your aff. Most of the time, the
answer to these questions will seem unfair. If you are negative, you should point this out and provide a
counter-interpretation of how I should evaluate the debate.
Counterplans / Theory:
1. The threshold for making any theory argument a voting issue is high. You cannot just say “voting
issue—fairness and education” and expect to win, even if the other team drops it. This is especially true for
“cheap shots.” My default is always to reject the argument and not the team, unless you develop a
compelling argument for why I must reject the team.
2. Conditionality is probably fine. Its an uphill battle for the aff. Same for PICs (as long as they are
textually competitive and not something like a word PIC).
3. Consult / Conditioning / Etc – I almost always think that these are unfair, but the negative is in a better
place if they have a good solvency advocate to make their CP seem less contrived. A link to your net
benefit is not a solvency advocate for doing the CP.
Overall – try to impact your theory arguments in terms of how it changes the quality and competitiveness
of debate. Instead of using catch-phrases like “time skew,” “neg flex,” “breadth of education,” you should
explain what sort of CPs their theory argument justifies and what it would be like to be aff in a world where
those were OK. If they PIC out of a word in your plan and say its ok because “you get to chose the words in
your plan,” you should respond by explaining that with this sort of standard, every time someone
researches a new aff, they have to cut answers to “x” word PICs, where “x” is the number of words in your
plan. This punishes affs for doing research, and creates a ridiculous burden for the 2A. That is more
compelling to me than “skews aff ground” or something.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Whisenhunt, Toby
*This is meant to provide insight to the default process I use to make decisions unless told otherwise by
the debaters. I believe strongly in the marketplace of ideas. Everything is open to debate. It is your job to
sell the args and evidence. I will read cards occasionally after rounds, but I will not read ALL the cards
after a round.
-I view debate as comparison of competing frameworks. This refers to how the debate is decided not just
the concept of K vs. Policy. Why is something more important than something else? (time frame trumps
magnitude ... why?)
-I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the
fulfillment of the framework's demands.
-I try to limit my decision to the arguments made in the debate.
T
•I'm not a T hack. T debates and theory args should be presented at a reduced rate of speed due to the
blippy nature of some of the analysis. The same is true for any SPEC args. I will pull the trigger on T.
• SPEC args are rarely in and of themselves a voting issue for me. Rather I see them as neccessary to
establishing ground deliniation. That is not to say I never vote on a SPEC arg, but it is rare.
Theory
•I believe the topic should provide fair and debatable ground. I often compare competing interpretations
when deciding how the topic should be resolved.
•I am generally more interested in substantive voting issues than theory arguments, but voting issues should
be answered. Often these arguments serve their purpose by helping negotiate your ground in the debate, but
do not necessarily justify a voting issue.
Defaults/Disads
•If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I usually determine the direction
of uniqueness before the link.
•If forced by lack of comparison to use my own framework I will consider time frame, probability, and
magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.
Counterplans/Counter-advocacy
•I have no strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory. CPs without a net benefit or are
banking on a solvency defict can have a up hill battle.
•PLan text should be thought out. Thats not to say a poorly worded CP is an auto loss, but it does leave the
negative open to some arguments I might find persuasive concerning perms, solvency, etc. if they opt to go
that direction.
Kritiking
•The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. I believe we
should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to
application.
•For me all arguments are questions of framework. Debaters should demonstrate how arguments will be
evaluated.
• I'm a big fan of specific references to the link argument of the K. Even a k of the res should implicate how
the aff is fostering the mindset in question.
•Creativity is often rewarding!
Rebuttals/How to win
•Your last rebuttal is very important to my decision, but is not necessarily entirely disconnected from the
rest of the debate. You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in
theirs.
•I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality and effectiveness of comparison.
Both in evidence and the story told.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
•Impact calculus should begin in constructives or early rebuttals at the latest. 2R impact calc is better than
none, but it loses some effectiveness with its late arrival.
Speaker Points
•<25 Doesn't play nicely with others
•27.5 Half way between 25 and 30
•28.5+ Impressive
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Whitmore, Whit
5th year coaching
Chattahoochee High School and University of Michigan
I have judged at the following high school tournaments this year: Wake, Michigan, Lexington,Carrolton,
Emory, Berkeley, UGA.
I have judged at the following college tournaments this year: Georgia State, Kentucky, Wake, Wayne State,
West Georgia, Northwestern, NDT.
I'd just like to say from the start that I, like most judges, am going to have some biases for certain
arguments. I fully believe, however, that my biases can be overcome in a debate round. I will not defer to a
team that is poorly arguing/debating a position that I agree with. I strive to be as objective as possible. I
believe that intervening into the debate does a disservice to the debaters. Don't look for help during the
debate. I try to not give non-verbals. On occasion, I will laugh during cross-x or a speech (I even enjoy it),
but don't think that just because I find someone humorous that I think that person is making smart
arguments. I enjoy civil debates and think that it is best if everyone is cordial. So be nice. I think false
disclosure, card clipping, lying, and evidence theft are serious issues. So don't do them.
I will break down my thoughts on debate, and hopefully this will help anyone who I will be judging:
I tend to view theoretical and topicality arguments like any other argument in debate. I let the arguments in
the round guide my decision making and default to the most persuasive method of evaluating them.
Weighing and comparing standards is important to winning these debates.
I am a huge fan of impact analysis and evidence comparison. I don’t think that enough teams do it. It can
certainly win you a debate. So few teams think about how impacts access one another. Making small
distinctions like controlling uniqueness or timeframe can be crucial to winning. Debaters that put in the
time and effort early on to establish control of the debate in this area are usually rewarded.
I enjoy case debates.
I think the best link arguments to your kritik won't be found in cards you have cut. Reading the other team’s
evidence and finding the arguments that your criticism indicts will get you a long way in the debate. I think
that affirmatives rely too much on generic evidence to answer kritiks, and don't do enough time defending
what the kritik is criticizing or making smart analytical arguments against them in the specific context of
the affirmative. Affs should press the internal link between the impact and the link as well as the initial
links. If your only link is "the state," you are probably in trouble. If you can't explain your author’s
arguments and relate them to the plan, you are probably in trouble. If you don't have an alternative, you are
probably in trouble.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Wilkerson, John
Stratford Academy
Debate experience- I started debating in the middle of the 7th grade at Stratford and continued debating for
four years at Samford University. In college I qualified for the NDT three times. I have around 20+ rounds
on the topic spread across various regional and national tournaments and have cut a pretty good number of
cards.
Disadvantages: I like disads. Disadvantages that are specific to the case are generally better than the
recycled Jackson-Vanick shell that has been run for 5 years with a new uniqueness card. In most debates I
judge debaters need to do a better job comparing the strength of the link vs. the link turn in situation where
they aren’t mutually exclusive in order to win a larger risk of the D.A. The argument that “the disad turns
the case” has become a rhetorical trope that doesn’t have much meaning and in many situations doesn’t
make sense. For example, the war in Iraq hasn’t prevented us from giving Aid to Africa, the housing crisis
hasn’t prevented aid to Africa etc. For me “disad turns case” without an explanation will get me to write the
symbol for D.A turns case and give you a funny look unless you explain it, if you really think its important
you might want to read a card on it. Impact assessment is really important to me. I try to rely on the
debater’s prioritization of the impacts. Starting the impact calculus earlier than the last two speeches is
better as this generally leads to actual debate about the impact calculus.
Counterplans: Again specific > generic. I believe that dispo is the middle of the road for most CP’s.
Generally on counter plan theory I think that most things are ok. I feel like PICS are legit but can be
reduced to absurd levels, punctuation won’t get very far whereas counter planning out of a certain drug etc
is clearly a substantive issue. Counterplans that test the A) Africa key warrant or B) the U.S key warrant are
going to be fine with me since those are the core questions of the topic. Object fiat is suspect in my view. I
don’t think it leads to very good debate and is generally treads on the law remaining thing that people can’t
counterplan out. Consult if you must. I don’t really care for it unless you have really super pieces of
evidence that say we should consult and even then why not just run a relations D.A? I have voted AFF on
consult is abusive twice this year, that 100% when the issue was a major issue in the 2AR. That’s the data
interpret as you will.
Topicality- I haven’t voted negative on T this year which surprises me because I think there are a lot of non
topical cases running around. My default position is that the affirmative is defending a topical plan text and
is defending the plan as if it were implemented via fiat. If that’s not how you would like your plan
evaluated you should be very clear on that. I don’t think that reading the resolution is topical. If you have a
topic plan/advocacy statement feel free to have whatever advantage you want in whatever framework you
feel is appropriate. I’m a very hard, perhaps even impossible, sell on claims like “T” = genocide. My
default position on T is competing interpretations but I am open to other standards.
Kritiks. I think good kritik debates can be very good as well as strategic.. The main problem I have had
with those types of debates is that the alternative receives exactly 15 seconds of speech time per speech by
the negative and it always “solves 100% of the case and avoids the links and its try or die for the
alternative”. I think that alternatives should have texts and at some point the negative should explain how it
functions. What does it mean to reject the post colonial subaltern? How would I go about doing that if I
were so inclined etc. The same rules apply for “the K turns the case” as the disad turns the case.
A word on new affs. I'm normally not a big fan of multiple counterplans but in round where new affs are
broken I have come to almost accept them as inevitable and don't have a strong predisposition against more
than one counterplan. Its important that the debaters be very clear on how the interact, esp later in the
debate.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Yost, Michael
University of Oklahoma
Strikes: Jenks
Experience: 2 years in HS (UN PKOs, Civil Liberties) for Jenks, 2 years in college (Supreme Court,
Middle East) for OU
Rounds judged this year: 30
I've gone through half a dozen rewrites of this, and none of them seem very satisfactory. If I were to sum up
my judge philosophy in one sentence it would be - debate how you want; I will try my best not to intervene.
The judges I respect most are the ones who can divorce themselves from the round and render a decision
independent of their biases. Given this, I will work hard to adjudicate whichever round I am given. I do
have biases, but few I am dead-set upon. Among them:
The aff should defend the implementation of a topical plan text, and the neg should defend a competitive
alternative (whatever form that may take -- CP, squo, K alt). I note this because some of the worst rounds I
judge or have been involved in are ones where the aff doesn't defend much of anything and the neg is
forced to go for framework. These debates make me want to punch babies. I'm not totally against the idea
of affirming the resolution as something besides a government policy option, but the aff should be prepared
to defend why what they do provides a fair basis for debate.
Tangential note on the above: if the aff runs something wanky and critical, and the neg goes for 8 minutes
of impact turns and wins those turns, the neg will probably get 28.5's no question, because they are
badasses.
Arguments should be presented CLEARLY, regardless of the speed at which they're delivered. If I don't
understand what your argument is or why it's a reason to vote for you, I'll probably disregard it. Read:
"sky's blue, vote aff" bad. Also, I won't hesitate to yell "clear" - I've debated and flowed some of the fastest
people in the nation; I should not have to have difficulty comprehending you.
Theory, if you want to stake the round on it, should be framed as a reason to reject the team, not the
argument. If you end up going for "conditionality bad: it skews 2AC time allocation" you won't win.
Specific arguments are better than generic arguments, concrete arguments better than abstract arguments
and proven arguments better than speculative arguments.
I try to avoid reading evidence after the debate whenever possible. This means the team that does the best
job explaining the warrants of their evidence and comparing theirs with their opponents' will usually fare
better. Exceptions to the above rule occur when neither side explained their evidence or when the factual
content of a piece of evidence is in question.
Impact analysis is usually a tiebreaker, not a round-winner. This isn't because impact analysis isn't
important -- it is. But frequently impact comparisons are remarkably shallow or unhelpful. Example: people
often couch their impact analysis in the assumption that they're winning nearly full risk of an impact (hint:
you usually aren't). A substantive no link often can be devastating, even if the impact is extinction.
Left to my own devices, I'll probably default to voting on magnitude of impacts absent a discussion of
probability, etc.
Arguments I really despise:
The various specification arguments, wipeout, spark, hyperspace, religious arguments (radical orthodoxy,
etc.), arguments that ask me to make a "personal endorsement" of a team's advocacy (I disagree with you, I
promise), normativity/Schlag, floating PIKs, etc. I might still vote on these, but I have a fairly high
threshold.
Debate could afford to be a bit more cordial:
-My name is Michael, not "judge".
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
-Do not take anything too seriously, including yourself.
-Nothing's more excruciating than a pointlessly hostile debate.
-Have fun! This is your national tournament, after all.
Some additional notes:
-That I usually run policy arguments when I debate should not deter critical teams from doing their thing:
most of the best debates I've seen and judged have been more critical, and I vote for the K fairly frequently.
-That said, there are large bulks of critical literature of which I only have superficial understanding. These
include: psychoanalytic Ks (Lacan, Zizek, D&G, Edelman, etc.), Heidegger, culture Ks (CRT, LatCrit,
Orientalism, etc.). I am, however, pretty familiar with the capitalism debate, ethics K's (Nietzsche, Levinas,
etc.), and a few other authors like Foucault, Agamben, Churchill. So keep this in mind when you're
explaining your arg.
-Speaker points: Usually range from 26.5-28.5, but starts at a 27. If you got something lower, I'll probably
tell you why. 27.5 is average, 28 good and 28.5 great. 29 or above are reserved for near-perfect speeches.
TOC Judge Philosophies
2008
CHHS
Zagorin, Edmund
I debated four years in high school on the national circuit, cleared at the TOC and currently debate in
college for the University of Michigan. I prefer persuasion over tech, specificity over generality, and good
analytics over bad cards. I try to reward strategic creativity. I will listen to any argument, any style, any
form so long as it is justified by the debaters.
Arguments I prefer: PICs, Relations DAs, specific kritiks on a poststructuralist wavelength, anything
Malthus, allegories, ad hominems and creative advantage counterplans.
Arguments that are somewhat less credible in front of me: Aspec, Ospec, T substantial, Consult
Counterplans, Conditionality Bad, Disad intrinsicness, generic kritiks on a psychoanalytic wavelength,
objectivism.
Theory: The first question I evaluate is the question of the remedy— does it make the counterplan or disad
or kritik go away? Is it a reason to make that team lose? Does it mean I only evaluate arguments in the first
3 minutes of the 2ac? Does it mean I should assign you extra risk of a DA, because their abusive strategy
prevented you from making damning impact calculus? If I am not told what to do with a theory argument, I
tend to default to ‘reject the argument, not the team.’
Evidence: I will read evidence to resolve a contention, evaluate quality in a debate where quality is
important and to check author qualifications.
Ethics: Debate has no rules other than those established by the debaters. That said, physical violence,
destruction of property and sexual or racialized harassment should be kept to a minimum.
This list is purely informational; I will listen to anything and I advise that debaters play to their strengths.