**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

I feel that a new tabbing website calls for a new judge philosophy.  That, and my other one was about to start kindergarten, so...  

Some things have changed, some things have stayed the same.  Looking back on my old philosophy, I could tell that it was the scribbles of youth and over-exuberance.  There were many foundations that I would have liked to shake with that little document, but it is a rare occurance that anything written changes anything acted.  And such a poorly written little document at that! 

Some things you should know about me: I'm a philosophy guy.  I've done all of my formal academic training in philosophy and the history of philosophy, and debate plus a few classes on the side are all I have in communications studies training.  I tend to think that fact-value and fact-theory distinctions are bogus in practice but conceptually useful.  So, for example, against an "ontology comes first" argument, I would much rather hear a defense of your ontology rather than an argument about why ontological questioning should subside in the face of mass death.  Despite all this, I am a believer in the incommensurability of theories (paradigms?), so make your comparisons relevant--I'm a big sucker for elegance on this front.

I'm not big on offense-defense, especially on debate theory arguments.  Thus I'm not particularly happy when someone banks a debate on "any risk of a _____" impact calculi.  I'll vote on we-meets, too.  Even worse than this quirk in the way I evaluate the logos of your claims is the fact that I'll let the ethos and pathos of your speeches play into my decision.  I will let myself be "persuaded" by arguments, and though this sounds unfair, I think it is better that I am up-front about it rather than in denial.  As much as anyone tries to exclude them, these factors play a role in every decision.

I no longer default to flowing you in paragraphs in Word.  I used to do this because I thought that it would help me see through the way that the line-by-line obfuscates larger narratives and commitments in the debate round.  Not a lot of people do the line by line effectively anymore, and I feel that this obscures larger issues in a debate round in a more fundamental way (bad line by line outweighs dangers of line by line-centrism).  So now I'm out to help you figure out how to make the line by line work for you.

I will time your prep until the flash drive is out of your computer.

I will not disclose my decision until you update your wiki.

Without getting into too many specifics, I think that this pretty much covers what might make me different from the majority image of a policy debate critic.  I would much rather discuss concerns or questions you have about the way I'll evaluate debates with you in person, so please feel free to approach me or email me questions.

izak

9/17/2012

New Pet Peeve (10/14/2012)

2ac says various things about the alternative throughout their speech.  In the block, you say "Now onto the Alternative debate" and just say a bunch of stuff about the alternative.  "Embedding" clash is not an excuse to forego comparison between arguments, and not going to the line by line is not license to not talk about your opponent's arguments.  If this is your style of debate, you'd better make sure you are EXTENDING arguments (i.e., comparing them, arguing for them, deploying and employing them) as opposed to REPEATING the constructive that happened before you spoke.

If you do this in front of me, I'm going to set a very high bar for your speaker points.  If you do not actually embed clash, you will not receive more than 27 points from me.

Not all of you are ready to "do" embedded clash.  In fact, you've got to be pretty good at making discriminations about the line by line before you can decide on what does and does not count as a responsible or responive argument--in a way, it's a prerequisite to doing competent embedded clash.

Point Inflation Adjustment (11/8/2013)

After reading a lot about speaker points this year, I realize that I am way behind the times regarding point inflation.  When I was a debater, "competent and winning" was a fast way to get a 27.5, which wasn't bad (wasn't great, but wasn't bad either).  If I were "competent and losing", I usually got a 27 or a 27.5.  Speaker points describing incompetence lived around 27 and below.

My scale to date has pegged "competent and winning" at a 28.  This, of course, is just a baseline--I've definitely given points higher than a 28 to all four debaters in a round.  But, as long as you aren't vomiting on yourself during your speeches and are making good enough strategic decisions to win the debate, I'll give you a 28.  

It seems like I need to bump my points about half a point overall considering 5-3 teams are averaging about a 28.5.  I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.5 starting at Wake, if only to prevent teams from preffing me in all of my educational glory from being unfairly penalized by my miserly nature.

Point Inflation Update (11/12/2013)

Two edits: (1) For Wake, I'll use their speaker point scale.  It already seems pretty close to my inflation adjustment.  (2) After Wake, I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.3.  Seems to capture what teams that are winning just over half of their debates are averaging in 2013.  Also, I used to have to work hard for my 28.5's and am besieged on all sides by a burning and childish need to feel better than all of you.

Michael Eisenstadt, Ph.D.

Director of Forensics, California State University Long Beach

13th Year Judging College Debate | 18th Year Judging High School Debate

2014 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year | 2018 "Top Critic Award" at the Las Vegas Classic (UNLV) | 2019 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year

For questions of any kind, please e-mail me at: michael.eisenstadt@csulb.edu

Tournaments Judged This Season (2022-2023):

Updated 9-17-19

***I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m.stadt89@gmail.com, not my Tabroom e-mail).***

I will not necessarily read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and/or to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.

This judge philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I think I have become more ambivalent to what your argument is over the years and more concerned with how you argue it. My job is to evaluate the arguments made in a debate, your job is to tell me why and how I should vote for them. Therefore, I think the following information is more helpful for you than me telling you what arguments I "like." This is your debate and not mine. Every day is #GAMEDAY and I will work hard when judging your debate, the same way I appreciated those who worked hard to judge my own.

An important meta-theoretical note: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. I perceive there to be a serious problem with communication in competitive debate. Debates are won by important communicative moments (see below). Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko has called these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity would make having such a moment extraordinarily difficult.

Debate is a communicative activity. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches and/or making no attempt at eye contact drastically heightens the risk of a miscommunication.

I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate. Teams seem to frequently read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is highlighted down into oblivion. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.

Debate is what you make it. For some, debate is a game of verbal chess that is designed to teach them about institutional policy-making. For others, it is a place to develop community and advocacy skills for the problems and issues they face on an everyday basis whether at school, within debate, or elsewhere. I believe that one of the best things about this activity is that it can accomplish so many different things for so many individuals and it serves a variety of purposes. I think either or any of these approaches teach us the transferable skills debate can offer. No matter the arguments presented in a debate, I will always recognize this and will always support you for what you do. Over the years I have found myself voting fairly evenly for and against "framework" arguments because I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate itself. My ballot will never be an endorsement of one form of debate over another, it will very simply represent who I thought did the better debating.

Framework. In 1984, Dr. David Zarefsky famously argued, "the person who can set the terms of the debate has the power to win it." Generally, the 2NR that goes for "Topicality + Case D to Aff Impact Turns" is more likely to win in front of me than the 2NR who only goes for "State Good/Inevitable," though that is typically suitable defense on the case when the affirmative criticizes governmental action. The negative wins in front of me going for this 2NR strategy most often when it includes some combination of the following 3 arguments:

1. An interpretation supported by definitional evidence (that is ideally contextual to the topic). I am uncertain why negative interpretations like "direction of the topic" circumvents affirmative offense. These softer interpretations typically hurt the negative's ability to win the limits DA without much payoff. I have found that negative teams have a more uphill battle in front of me when the only term in the resolution they have defined is "United States Federal Government."

2. A Topical Version of the Aff and/or Switch Side Debate argument - I think of "framework" as the intersection between Topicality and argument(s) about how I prioritize impacts, which impacts should be prioritized, and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that plays defense to and/or solves portions of the case (and/or the impact turns) can be a good way to beat the affirmative. I find myself voting affirmative in debates where the 2NR did not address the affirmative's substantive offense (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). I also think this sets the negative up to make arguments about potential neg ground as well as a switch-side debate argument.

3. An impact - I have voted on procedural and structural fairness, topic education, and argument advocacy/testing impacts. Ideally, the 2NR will be careful to identify why these impacts access/outweigh the affirmative's offense and/or solve it. I think that debate is generally more valuable for "argument testing" than "truth testing," since the vast majority of arguments made in a debate rely on assumptions that "the plan/aff happens" or "the alternative/framework resolves a link."

Conversely, the affirmative should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments.

Presumption: This is a legal term that I think folks are often confused about. Presumption means that the affirmative has not met their burden of proof (sufficient evidence for change) and that I should err negative and be skeptical of change. Although a 2NR should try to avoid finding themselves with no offense, I am increasingly compelled by arguments that an affirmative who has not chosen to defend a(n) change/outcome (note: this does not mean a plan) has not met their burden of proof. For instance, an affirmative that says "the State is always bad" but does not offer some alternative to it has not overcome the presumption that shifting away from "the State" would be inherently risky. Of course, a framework argument about what it means to vote affirmative, or whether the role of the debate is to advocate for/against change factors into how I think about these issues.

Flowing: is a dying art. Regardless of whether I am instructed to or not, I will record all of the arguments on a flow. You should flow too. Reading along with speech docs does not constitute flowing. I am frustrated by teams who spend an entire cross-x asking which cards were read and requesting a speech doc with fewer cards. In the days of paper debate (I am a dinosaur to the teens of 2020), you would not have such a luxury. There are clearly instances where this is not uncalled for, but the majority of cases appear to be flowing issues, and not "card dumps" from an opposing team.

Permutations: I am almost never persuaded by the argument that the affirmative does not get a permutation in a "method debate." Permutations are mathematical combinations and all methods are permutations of theories and methods that preceded it. I could [rather easily] be persuaded that if the affirmative has no stable advocacy or plan, then they should not get a permutation. That is a different case and has a different warrant (affirmative conditionality). "Perm do the aff" is not an argument, it is not a permutation and says nothing about how a counterplan or alternative competes with the aff. I have also found that teams seem to have difficulty in defending the theoretical legitimacy of permutations. Although I would have an astronomically high threshold for voting on an argument like "severance permutations are a voting issue," such arguments could be persuasive reasons to reject a permutation.

Risk: I find that I am mostly on the "1% risk" side of things when a team has [good] evidence to support a claim. However, I can also be easily persuaded there is a "0% risk" if a team has made too much of a logical leap between their evidence and their claim, especially if the opposing team has also indicted their opponent's evidence and compared it to their own. This is especially true of "Link->Internal Link" questions for advantages and disadvantages.

Tech and Truth: If all arguments were equal in a debate, I would err on the side of truth. However, that is rarely (and should not be) the case. When there is not a clear attempt by both teams to engage in line-by-line refutation, one team tends to miss important framing arguments their opponents are making that undercut the "impact" of their truth claims. This understanding is distinct from "they dropped an arg, judge, so it must be true," since that is not a warranted extension of an argument nor is it a comparison that tells me why the "dropped argument" (how do we know it was dropped if we aren't debating line-by-line and making these comparisons? Could an argument somewhere else or on an entirely different sheet answer it?) should affect the way I evaluate other portions of the debate.

Other important notes:

A) I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot is NOT necessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

B) I do not want to preside over accusations about what has or has not happened outside of the debate I am judging. In these situations, I will always defer to the arguments presented in a debate first and try to resolve the debate in that fashion, since I am often not witness to the events that are brought up about what may or may not have happened prior to a debate.

C) I am ambivalent about argument selection and theory and am willing to vote against my own convictions. E.G. I think the Delay CP is 100% cheating and unfair but I will not credit a 2AR on that position that does not defeat the negative's arguments about why the CP is good/legitimate or I think conditionality is generally good but would still vote that it is bad if the negative is unable to defend their 1NC strategy.

D) I am unwilling to "judge kick" a CP extended by the 2NR unless they have explicitly told me why I should. The affirmative should, of course, contest the claim that I can always revert to the status quo in the event that a counterplan is insufficient/unnecessary.

Debate Background:   I debated 4 years Policy in high school, debated 4 years policy at DePaul (early 90s); grad assisted policy debate at DePaul (2 years); grad assisted policy debate at PITT (2 years); Coached Policy Debate at Miami-Ohio in their Last year; have been at LCSC 3 years dabbling in other forms of debate (parli, IPDA).  Am glad to be at a policy debate tournament again and to have debaters willing to try policy.  =-)

The Pace of Things:  Given that I'm returning to policy after a couple of years.... and given that it's early in the season... if I'm being honest, flowing lightning fast speed is probably beyond what I am capable of at the moment. But I also enjoy a debate at moderate speed.    That said, I try very hard to get everything on my flow...  And if the debaters are organized, and clear, I can usually keep up pretty well.  You should also know that I tend to verbalize "Clearer" or "louder" If I am having trouble understanding what you are saying.

Policy & Rhetorical/Philosophical Worlds:    As a policy debater, policy debates are fine with me...but with a rhetorical studies background at Pitt, I'm fairly comfortable with philosophy, rhetoric, and criticism. That said, regardless of the position, its still the debater's responsibility to tell me which arguments are important and why.

My assumptions & biases:   Unless you indicate otherwise, I assume topicality and framework arguments as a priori issues.  I also tend to believe that Kritiks are to be evaluated prior to policy actions.  I tend to see topicality as one tool in the debater's tool kit.  I tend to believe that if you want to win Topicality, you need to really go for Topicality, and spend the time with it.  That said, I aso tend to believe that reasonably topical cases probably shouldn't be punished unless they badly mishandle the positions.

Overall Preferences:     Be cool.  Play nice. Have fun.  Enjoy debate. :-)

I see it as the debater's responsibility to weigh evidence, arguments, risks, etc.   I like it when debaters tell me precisely what I should be looking at to write my ballot.

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

SECTION 1: OVERALL REFLECTION ON THE TYPES OF DEBATES I LIKE AND WHY

I came up as a high school debater and coached at a high school when I was in college instead of actually debating, so many college debate people don't know me. I came from a region which hadn't competed on the national circuit and my partner and I were the first local team to go to the TOC. I have judged many high school policy debates over the past ten years. I've recently begun coaching and judging in the realm of college debate as well. I like judging debates and I'll do my best to give you a thoughtful decision and constructive feedback. I'm very comfortable judging any speed or style of debate.

Being a policy debater made a big difference in my life in terms of what I eventually came to study and to do with my life. My intellectual concerns center on decolonial thought and Africana philosophy. Teams that share these or related concerns will probably be more successful in front of me. I do agree that there are certain issues that present themselves as prior questions to determning the best course of action for the United States government to take. These issues are perhaps summed up in as those three areas that Lewis Gordon contends tend to be the focus of African Diasporic philosophy: "(1) philosophical anthropology, (2) social transformation and freedom, and (3) the metacritique of reason." This is to say that all else being equal I do strongly prefer debaters that have something to say about (1) What it means to be a human (and what it means to be a debater), (2) How changes in our world ought to be pursued (from the perspective of those whose freedom is significantly constrained, rather than the perspective of those whose freedom is the telos of existing arrangements), and (3) What it means to engage in communication and argument. I don't take it upon myself to dictate that these concerns be utmost to the debaters I judge. I have no problem judging a 'good old-fashioned policy debate' between two teams focused on concerns within that realm. I have judged about three such debates for every one 'non-traditional' debate I've had the pleasure of adjudicating, and don't object to this being the case. But if you want me to vote for you, particularly in those sorts of debates repugnantly termed "clash of civilizations" debates, taking these concerns into account by focusing your arguments on contestations within these realms - as opposed to concerns about why it is good to devote the activity solely to debating the efficacy of US action - will improve your ability to win and receive good speaker points substantially.

As a debater I was successful on the technical side of things, but I do wish I had devoted more rounds to exploring personal experience and performative approaches. I tend to be sympathetic to teams that pursue these approaches, though not to the point of discounting the other team's arguments. I like to see debates where the neg arguments engage the content of the 1ac and try to compete on that level to a significant degree. I think that when one team discusses personal experience in a significant way, the other team is missing out, both pedagogically and argumentatively, by not responding in kind. Teams that seek to reject the other team's performative approach and not embrace the performative elements of their own debating won't do as well in front of me as those that rise to the challenge. By performative, I am merely building upon the idiom most used in discussions of the activity (though the term is one wrought with difficulties and paradoxes like its cousin, the kritik/K) to describe the approach of debaters who prioritize persuading me by what they do in communicating their arguments more so than in merely the (artificially-separated-from-form) content of their arguments alone. In parallel to this, though, teams that reject the aff's policy approach by philosophy/theory alone without an engagement at the level of why the aff's policy proposal might be a bad idea won't do as well in front of me as teams that integrate attacks on the case into their K. I am likely to ultimately vote negative in a debate where the aff still might be a good idea when the neg presents a better idea, but clashing at the level of how the aff's idea might fail - even if not guaranteeing the aff's failure in the way a conceded extinction DA with 100% probability would - remains an effective way to show the relative desirability of the neg's position.

Passion, humor, and thoughtfulness are things I find pretty important in debating successfully. Debaters who persuasively convey, with precision and emphasis, the key reasons why they should win the debate will tend to have higher speaks and an easier road to winning my ballot, and this becomes more acute in the 2nc and the rebuttals. Debaters whose arguments demonstrate they've reflected on the arguments of both sides, rather than reiterating their main points and hoping it will all work out, are much more likely to impress me. I do appreciate funny debaters and debates where people are enjoying themselves and employing some form of mutual respect as opposed to indifference or antagonism.

These are the major concerns that shape how I judge a debate. Sections 2 & 3 will provide more specific notes on how I like to see certain things done. Be forewarned that a) these sections are not extremely important for you to read before I judge your debate, so you can skip ahead to your prep work if that seems a more reasonable priority, and b) I have attempted to lay them out so you can jump around, so some of the statements are redundant with things said in other parts of this paradigm.

SECTION 2: REFERENCE NOTES ON MAJOR ISSUES

(Speed) No problems keeping up, though slowing down to persuasively emphasize what you are winning is a good thing to do. No problems with teams who want the debate to be slower, and will tend to give them the sort of leeway they require. If you're the faster of the two teams I certainly don't mind you using your speed to win the debate but if you can be flexible in that regard to improve the overall quality of the round your speaks will probably reflect that positively.

(K vs. Policy, Neg Strats) The debates I enjoy the most tend to be those where both teams have some sort of sustained engagement with critical theory(/ies), but this is not a precondition for the debate being good in my eyes. The neg strategies I like the most tend to be those that engage what the 1ac said. If one side initiates a relatively more performative approach to the debate, I will tend to view both teams through a performative lens. I do enjoy good policy debates. I also enjoy good critical arguments. I also enjoy good performance based debates. I think the best negative strategies always include some form of disadvantage, case turn, and case defense, though the sources for and articulations of these can venture well outside the mainstream. You might be able to win on an argument that discourse unrelated to the policy at hand should be rejected, but it will always help you to contextualize your criticism by talking about how it would manifest in the imagined world of the plan. I am also sympathetic to aff arguments that negative performative contradictions cut against the neg's alternative solvency and bolster the ability of a permutation to solve the neg's alternative.

(Plan Focus) I think that negative ground in debates should be inclusive of a variety of elements of the aff, not solely the plan text. If you feel otherwise, pref me lower. Then again, affs that can defend why only the plan text is salient will often win in front of me because their arguments are better on that question, so you might want to pref me higher than others who are more inclined to disregard those arguments.

(Orientation to Issues and Literature) I do an awful lot of reading that is historical and philosophical; teams who are over-reliant on evidence whose epistemology they cannot defend might not do as well in front of me. Teams with a strong knowledge of epistemological dynamics who can utilize that knowledge in the debate will tend to do better in front of me. I am enthusiastic about argumentation that critically addresses systems of power relating to coloniality, racism, gender, and sexuality. I am knowledgeable about many of the major currents in philosophy, particularly existential philosophy, post-structuralism, and dialectical analysis. If you prefer judges who tend to ignore these sorts of issues, you probably should not pref me highly.

(Post-Round Work) I read evidence on parts of the debate that are close and on parts of the debate where the 2nr and/or 2ar extensions are citation-heavy where the specific warrants in the cards will impact how. I will tend to read un-highlighted parts of the card to provide feedback to the debaters and occasionally in order to make it possible to interpret the part that is underlined. If you want a judge to do all the work for you, I'm not the one for you. If you want a judge who will help you get by exclusively on tag-line extensions and under-highlighted and/or poor evidence, I'm not the one for you either.

(T) I enjoy topicality debates. I tend to be neg leaning on questions of predictability and ground and aff leaning on questions of limits. If you lose topic-implied ground in the debate and their interpretation makes it hard to predict crucial elements of the aff, you can feel pretty safe about going for T in the 2nr. If you do a good job of defending why your counter-interpretation causes good debates in a predictable way, I'll probably be willing to vote aff even if you make the neg research more cases.

(Framework) Non-traditional affs are neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad; the traditions themselves are historically shaped and have changed frequently. I'll vote neg on theory arguments if they're won, but winning these arguments on either side requires a philosophical engagement with substantive ideas. If there's a problem with the logic of the topic that is articulated by the aff, and they win that debate is a good space to try to shape our education in order to address that problem, I'll be willing to vote aff. You are better off making a topicality argument about the specific mechanisms in the topic, other than USFG/Resolved, that the aff's critical approach doesn't allow the neg to deal with, rather than making a generic USFG framework argument. I have heard the state action good/bad debate plenty of times and am not necessarily interested in hearing it much more, though if it's all you've got and you execute it perfectly I'll vote for it. You're better served addressing the substance of the aff and using T arguments about what other mechanisms in the topic mean or imply (i.e., financial incentives and restrictions on the Energy Production topic or infrastructure investment on the Transportation topic) in order to argue that the aff's non-USFG-centric approach hurts your ability to negate because of the mechanisms for exploration it uses rather than because the non-USFG focus itself is bad for debate.

(CP Theory) I sometimes enjoy counterplan theory debates, but rarely find PIC's or conditionality to be abusive, and am disinclined to vote negative because a 2ac argument was abusive. I enjoy theory more when arguments are substantial. If you like making well-thought out theory arguments in the 2ac and devoting significant time to winning them in the 1ar, I'm a good judge for you. If you like blowing off theory arguments on the neg I'm not a good judge for you.

SECTION 3: REFERENCE NOTES ON TECHNICAL AND IDIOSYNCRATIC ISSUES

-Arbitrary "counter-interpretations" annoy me. The worst is "Only our case is topical." I'll only vote on that one if the 2ac warrants it and the neg block doesn't substantively answer it. "Their interpretation plus our case" is very nearly as bad. On T, define and interpret the words in the topic. On debate theory debates, arbitrary counter-interps are more reasonable and necessary but still not desirable. If the neg reads three conditional counterplans and two conditional critiques, I'm not super inclined to buy your "they get three condo CP's + ONE condo K" or "2 condo CP's + 2 condo K" counter-interps. Affs should probably either defend that unconditional neg positions are good, that the neg only gets one conditional position to read, or that the neg must make a (non-artificially) competitive position in the 1nc dispositional so the aff gets to turn it. I am kind of a fan of the 1nc having a dispositional CP or dispositional critique and still getting to read other conditional positions since the aff can straight turn the one dispo position to solve the skew arguments. This entails, though, that the dispositional position be something with a clear link to ground staked out in the 1ac with a net benefit that is not along the lines of "plan plus."

-Artificially competitive neg positions annoy me. Plan plus CP's are no fun to watch. Floating PIK's where the neg's author would disagree with the aff but the neg doesn't want to have to defend that the plan's a bad idea are no fun to watch. Dig in your heels on the neg and debate something substantive. PIC's that exclude an actual component of the plan are pretty good for debate. Critiques of aff discourse that don't require me to conclude that the aff plan is bad but that show that it might be bad because the aff's method or discourse or evidence depend on flawed assumptions are pretty good for debate. Defending status quo on plan action is good for debate.

-The less Eurocentric, or normatively white/masculine/heterosexual/wealthy your assumptions are, the more likely they are to persuade me. The specificity of your scenarios on the Hegemony debate is not likely to overwhelm your opponent's claim that your authors collectively are miseducated.

-Fast debate is probably good enough that there's no point in me being a crusader for slower debate. Still, team's that emphasize key points are good, and that may tend to involve slowing the debate down on crucial points. Also, structured 2ac arguments are more likely to help you win than a laundry list of blippy arguments. I'll do more work for affs whose 2ac arguments have a coherent structure than those who merely expect me to get every argument, no matter how long or warranted, on my flow accurately. The 2ac on off-case positions and the 1nc on case will tend to dictate how I flow the debate, so emphasize structure in preparing those parts of the debate. An emphasis on structure includes having numbers and subpoints that go in order.

-Aff predictability of neg arguments is rarely a compelling standard. If I were aff I would predict that any discourse I use in the 1ac might be critiqued by the neg. If I were aff I would predict that the neg might run a PIC that excludes part of the plan, including more abstract parts like the immediacy and stability of its implementation. That is to say, I would predict arguments like Referenda, Consult, Sunsets, Conditions, Delay. That being said, if you make an argument that a type of CP or K is bad for debate and the neg shouldn't go for it because they deny the aff access to predictable ground, I'm happy to vote aff on the theory debate. Failure to predict a neg position isn't a reason to reject it, but the position itself denying the aff the ability to generate predictable offense is. If the timeframe of your aff can't outweigh the net benefit to a Consult CP, then you should probably research impact turns to the net benefits of consult counterplans.

-I like strategies that aim to demonstrate abuse on theoretical positions, which generally speaking means that if you run a T argument in the 1nc it will be more compelling if the 2ac answers on a different position demonstrate how the plan(/advocacy) text shifts the terrain of the debate in such a way that arguments you can reasonably expect to win on are kept at bay. Likewise, if a counterplan is abusive, deploy the arguments that are structurally coupled with your 2ac abuse argument.

-If your cross-x questioning gives you great ground, try taking it. It is exhausting to see 3-4 rounds in a tournament where the 1ac says terrorism, the cross-x of the 1ac clearly establishes that the terrorism discourse is impossible to define but overtly Islamophobic, and then the 1nc reads a very generic criticism and terror talk is never fleshed out. The more you can pull out the most relevant argument, the better.

Me: I debated for four years at Michigan State University from 2008-2012. I coached at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) from 2012-2014. After that, I went and got my PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). I coached at Marquette off and on while at UWM. Now, I was an Assistant Professor at Texas State University where I coached and judged NFA LD and parli debates.

Update Northwestern 2024:

I’m a pretty big fan of SpeechDrop, but I get why you might want to use an email chain: https://speechdrop.net/

For email chains: josh.h.miller08@gmail.com

I have not done any topic research, so I may need more explanation of components of the literature than other judges. I will work very hard to follow your arguments, but you will likely need to spend more time explaining them. I have debated and judged several energy/climate topics.

I’ve judged more NFA LD debate than NDT/CEDA lately. That matters for a few reasons. First, that means I’ve decided debates that are typically a bit slower, so it might be advantageous to slow down a bit.

Second, because NFA LD debaters get much less preference in their judging, I have actively tried to be less ideological about arguments. I work actively in round to be persuadable on all arguments (even those I say I lean against below), and I always try my best to provide as much advice as possible no matter what type of argument you make (with the exceptions of death good, suicide good, or any form of oppression is good). Instead, I hope you read the philosophy as my attempt to do my best to evaluate my ability to judge certain arguments (based on my understanding/experience with them) and how I have typically voted in the past when debates were close and/or debates did not instruct me how to evaluate them. For example, I think I would be a good critic in a round where the neg is extending the states cp and elections DA, and I tend to conclude the counterplan solves because the aff has not impacted (or weighed) their solvency deficits (e.g., I don’t view “not uniform” as a bad thing until the aff explains why it is in connection to a specific internal link and impact).

Third, I might be unfamiliar with argumentative developments that other judges would just know or understand; I imagine I will vote for at least one team largely because they did a better job explaining their argument (in cross-ex or speeches) than the other.

If I do not have coffee and/or water with me before the debate starts and you want the best decision I can deliver, you should tell me to get some. Seriously, I will appreciate the reminder.

The Basics:

I have judged off and on for the past few years--not as much as I used to. I usually flow on pen and paper, so you might want to slow down a tad for theory, topicality, overviews, and long tags.

Less is more -- one of the most common comments I make at the end of the round is "I think you tried to too many arguments and did not develop them." In front of me, it is important to explain the implication of an argument and the rest of the round. In other words, I need to know why this argument matters and why I would think about this argument as I am deciding the debate.

Assumption-centered debate is bad. Do not assume I know or understand your argument; do not assume I know or understand how your argument interacts with other arguments in the debate. Explain it, substantiate it, defend it. Classic example: "this was answered in the overview" -- my typical thought, "how so?"

Technical concessions significantly affect my decisions. Even if the "thesis" of your position answers an argument, you should be explicit about how it does. I will likely think you dropped something if you overuse implicit clash. The caveat to this is that I need to understand the claim, evidence, warrant, and implication of the concession. A well-developed argument with a clear implication likely will matter more than a dropped undeveloped claim or two, but a dropped argument with a clear implication will matter a lot in how I decide the debate.

Defense matters, but offense is critical. Another common theme in my decisions is "I thought you did an excellent job playing defense to 'x,' but you did not really extend your offense." This has been especially true in the framework and topicality debates that I judged in the past.

Paperless – I’ll stop prep when the jump drive is out of your computer or the email is sent.

Mark cards as you read them.

If someone is caught cheating (clipping cards/fabricating evidence), that person will receive zero speaker points and the team that the person was on will receive a loss. If you make a challenge, you need evidence (recording). I will stop the round once a challenge is started.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and ableist language and arguments will lower speaker points and result in a loss. Please, just don't. If you are asking yourself, does my argument qualify as one of those things? I would ask that you read a different argument.

Case Debate: Yes, please. Impact defense has its place, but I would hope you would have more to say on the case.

Disads: Yes, please. I did a lot of politics work back in the day, and I still follow politics very closely. Winning uniqueness doesn’t mean that you have won a link. Winning a link doesn’t mean that the DA is unique. If you go for a disad and the case, note that I have historically voted affirmative on try-or-die (if the conditions for try-or-die are actually present). The negative should have some sort (even if it is minimal) of harms related defense or explicitly set up another way for me to evaluate impacts in the 2NR. Conversely, I find it very difficult to vote aff if they do not respond well to DA solves or turns the case.

A few quick examples—(1) The negative extends “Kamala will win” and “Kamala solves climate.” The aff goes for a climate advantage. The aff reduced the link to the DA by quite a lot but does not respond to “Kamala will win” and “Kamala solves climate.” I have historically decided the case was smaller than the DA because the squo solves.

(2) The negative extends that “Trump win means no possibility of solvency.” The aff goes for “Trump inevitable,” without answering “Trump = no solvency.” I usually end up voting negative because the best the aff could win here is a solvency takeout to the aff.

Of course, in-round debating and judge instruction can change this, but this is how I have typically decided when the debate is close or debaters do not offer judge instruction.

Counterplans: Reject the argument, not the team is my default for all theory arguments besides status of the counterplan questions. Having said that, I still think the negative needs to flow, notice theory arguments, and say RANT.

I’m fairly affirmative on a lot of competition questions (ie certainty counterplans). Lately, I have found that more teams need to be willing to at least introduce the permutation to do the counterplan in the debate. Although, I certainly have voted for these counterplans in the past and will likely continue to do so.

I usually default to not kicking the counterplan for the negative if the negative does not explicitly say that I have this option in a speech or in cross-examination. This is normally because I forget that’s a thing unless the debaters say something about it.

Conditionality: I’m pretty neg if there is only one conditional counterplan. I would say that I am neutral with two conditional counterplans. Three or more, I am pretty aff.

Critiques: In most judging pools, there are usually a good number of judges who are better for the critique than me. Have I voted on the critique? Yes. Am I as familiar with most critique literature as other judges? Likely not, and I feel like I have leaned aff on a lot of nexus questions involved in close critique debates.

Obviously, the more specific the critique to the plan, the better. When I vote for the critique, it is usually because the negative as done a lot of specific link work and/or a solid job of extending "the tricks" (alt solves the case, scholarship first, ethics first, root cause) and the affirmation has done a comparatively poor job of responding to those tricks or challenging the alternative. The affirmative is typically a good spot if they (1) don't forget about their aff, (2) challenge the alternative, and (3) respond to "the tricks."

I am a poor judge for positions based on the view that suffering or death are good. I believe that I am a poor judge for teams that go for Baudrillard and related authors.

No-Plan Affs: I have much more experience judging debates that center on plans. Have I voted for affs without a plan against framework? Yes, a few times. Have I voted for framework against an aff without a plan? Yes, a few more times.

I usually find topicality/framework arguments persuasive, especially if they emphasize the benefits of research and switch-side debate on a predictable and stable status point. If you decide against reading a plan, you are better served defending why that choice is good instead of solely arguing why topicality/framework is bad. The more concrete the advocacy of the 1AC the better. The clearer the connection to the topic the better. When I have voted for no-plan affs, the aff did an excellent job justifying their aff and used their aff well to link or impact turn the negative's position. The easiest way for teams advancing topicality/framework to lose is by forgetting their impacts or failing to respond to an impact-turn of their position. Also, see my comment above about making sure you explain the implication of your argument. I have judged too many framework debates where the negative extends too many underdeveloped advantages to their interpretation without explaining their implication or weighing those advantages against the other team’s.

In many of the debates that I have judged involving no-plan affs, the teams that did the best job framing and articulating for what debate is and what it should be about earned my ballot. For example, if one team is an ahead on “debate is game,” then fairness seems like one of the most important, if not the most important, thing (education might not even matter). But if I’m thinking of debate as a co-curricular event that prepares people for law school or graduate school, education seems to matter more than fairness. I will say this: I am better for affs without plans that focus on exclusion/marginalization in society and/or debate than I am for high theory Ks (either on the aff or neg). I have much more experience reading the literature relevant to debates about exclusion/marginalization than Baudrillard, for example.

Topicality: If the aff is at the core of the topic and literature, I have been pretty good for the aff against contrived T interpretations. That said, on large topics, I have been persuaded that a limited vision of the topic is necessary, especially when one's interpretation is supported with strong evidence.

If you still have any questions, please ask before the round starts OR email me at josh.h.miller08@gmail.com. If I can tell that you enjoy debating, I will probably enjoy judging the debate.

I see debate as a space for knowledge production, where we can use our ideas about the world to transform the world or make it a better place. The debaters get to decide what the debate should be about, be that a plan text or a critical approach to the topic. There are various approaches to the resolution and I am open to listening to your particular approach. You should advocate an approach that engages/attempts to engage the resolution.

That in mind I will provide a disclaimer, do not say evil things for the sake of competition, that approach is not persuasive at all! By evil I mean saying that genocides are good/necessary or that rape is ok, this extreme is not one that will persuade me to vote for you.

Framework

NEG- If you are going to go for framework make sure that the rebuttals contextualize the framework debate to the affirmative. Specificity in these debates goes a long way because often times framework is a blanket extension of standards with no explanation as to how the 1AC in particular causes the impacts.

AFF- If you are answering framework make sure you address their interpretation or provide a counter interpretation for the debate. Alf's should attempt to address the resolution, but if you dismiss the resolution I expect there to be a defense of a non-topical approach.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to email me @ jntterodriguez@gmail.com

12 years in policy debate. CSU Fullerton.

Quality over quantity

Im open to whatever just give me something substantive to vote on.

K: I don't know all the literature out there and even if I do I expect explanations and I expect you to make it reasonably understandable for your opponent. I like the wild, the unexpected, the innovative.

FW: I like critical AFF's in general but I think FW is important too. Try to keep it organized for me. Framing becomes super important.

CP: Take your time articulating that cp text to me.

DA: If uniqueness is in question I hope you take some extra time clarifying it for me in the last speech.

T: I like topicality in theory but the I dislike how they sometimes play out. If you want me to vote on a standard it should have in round abuse or generally some well warranted reasoning. Dropped blippy arguments are not persuasive to me.

symonds77@gmail.com

I'm judging more often and tabbing less these days, so I thought it was fair to have a little substance here. Anyway, this is how I judge:

(1) I have the speech doc open and I'm following along as you're reading cards

(2) I'm only ever listening to the speaker(s), I think it's really important not to be messing around with electronic media while judging.

(3) I'm constantly judging argument quality throughout the debate, so when the 2AR ends, 90% of the time I'm fairly certain who I am going to vote for. What time I spend looking over my flow and the evidence is used to think through the most likely questions from the losing team, to see if there's something that I might have missed.

(4) My general decision making process starts with impact calculus and impact comparison. If one side is decisively ahead here, this often controls my vote. 2NR and 2AR work here is vital.

(5) To decide key points of controversy in the debate, I identify each one from the final rebuttals, list them in the AFF or NEG column, then find the arguments from the responding team and line them up. Once I think the lists are complete, I choose which side persuaded me on each one.

(6) While I work hard to keep my (long list of) debate opinions out of debate in deference to the specific ways debaters make their arguments, I think it's only fair to list some of my abstract debate leanings so that you have more context/information:

--Everyone reading an aff related to the topic IS ideal for fairness, education, and research-based reasons, but simply listing off these buzzwords is not going to persuade me. And "related to the topic" is really case by case.
--On framework, education is more important than procedural claims - I regularly vote aff against framework bc the neg is overly fixated on "procedural fairness outweighs"
--Topical Versions of the Aff and Switch-Side debate arguments function like CPs that access AFF education and preserve fairness
--States CP is illegit bc it eliminates the literature-based debate over FG vs States
--CPs ought to be textually and functionally competitive
--Alts succeed by being deliberately vague and shifting later in the debate - especially "reject the aff" alts
--"Realism good" indicts virtually all affs on the Space Cooperation topic
--Both truth and techne matter

Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line and proper and complete argument extensions are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably wouldn't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Assistant Director of Forensics, Pepperdine University

General

A couple of years ago I repositioned myself in my relationship with debate, geographically and literally. This was an active choice to genuinely integrate my identities as a debate coach, mother, advocate, educator and partner. This only relates to you in that this choice is fairly clearly reflected in my judging philosophy, most directly under the “critical” section. After a recent CEDA one of my debaters asked me if I’d let my daughters grow up to be policy debaters. Unexpectedly, yet without hesitation, I said: NO. I didn’t want to have that answer. But I still do.

I’m not sure how I change that sentiment immediately, but I’m sure that it starts by being here to listen to the voices, the arguments of the debaters; to know what y’all want and need this activity to look like. This philosophy is my imperfect attempt to communicate that to you.

Specifics

Counterplans & Disads

I love a specific, creative strategy and that includes counterplans. I think it’s fair to say that I lean neg on cp theory, but don’t take that as license to favor generic/abusive strategies over specificity and creativity. I’m ok with conditionality and PICs generally (love specific PICs – solvency advocates, net benefits we don’t hear every year…) but I sympathize with the aff when the neg runs multiple CPs or CPs in the block.

Much like my thoughts on CPs, I enjoy creativity and specificity. I spend a fair amount of time talking about/cutting politics cards, and I enjoy listening to those debates. I think that impact calculus usually doesn’t happen early enough or sufficiently, beyond the tagline blurbs spewed out at the top of 2ncs/1nrs (“nuke war outweighs, that’s our X evidence”). Solid impact debating can save/win debate rounds.  Side note: Case debates are appreciated, undervalued and under-utilized.

Critical Debate

Like CPs, I prefer these arguments to have specific links and a tangible alternative. I’m ok if that link is something like our orientation to particular issues in the topic, a practice of the community, language, framing, etc., and the alternative is a method of resistance (or something in that vein). I appreciate arguments that are supported by scholarship and articulated as germane/responsive to the resolution and/or the other team’s argument(s). I think there are myriad ways in which a person/team can respond creatively.

Topicality

Slow down on T for me. I probably default to “Eh, you’ve got some ground” more often than people (who like T debates) like. I will listen to your T argument and evaluate it however you tell me to (or win that I should). The first sentence is just full disclosure. People often have this as a “/framework” section and I guess you can largely apply my sentiment re: T to those fw debates. If your fw argument is more exclusively about the way we orient ourselves to debate, you should probably see my philosophy re: critical debate.

Other Stuff

I don’t want to be in your email chain or sent a slew of cards I don’t ask for at any point. This is nothing against you. I just want to focus on evaluating the arguments as I hear them, as we create them in this space. I will call for cards if something is unclear and I feel it’s my fault OR if the debate is close on an issue.

All arguments are fine. I've been in debate for ten years and heard most of them. Don't make the debate round a hostile space for me, yourselves, or the other team, unless that's your argument and you're prepared to defend it. Basically just be nice.