Experience: I've been debating in one form or another since 1999. First in HS, than as a CEDA/NDT debater for 5 years. I've been coaching debate since 2005, mostly policy, though not exclusively. I have ran, coached, and judged every type of argument in that time.

Style: It is possible for you to be correct about the wrongness of your opponents arguments, but still be polite towards them. Don't be a jerk. Nice people get better speaker points than rude people. If you are reading a theory argument slow down a touch to make sure everyone gets all the args.

Arguments: I really do not care what arguments you go for. Read what you are comfortable with and impact your arguments. I will typically revert to an offense/defense/disad/advantage to evaluate arguments (especially with theory args). If you want me to evaluate particular arguments different, just tell me. I much prefer for the debaters to control the parameters by which they would like me to judge them and then fiddle with the knobs and levers at their disposal to get the result they want.

Note: Don't assume that I know everything about the topic. Succinct explanations about content I may need to know to make an informed decision will also be rewarded with good speaks.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

 Fresno State |  Coach

Philosophy: 

I embrace all forms of debate, and particularly enjoy an intent that goes beyond winning the round.  In a perfect world, collegiate debate is a forum where arguments based on sound reasoning have the potential to develop into national policy.  My job is to mentor the development of every debate team I interact with, and to do it with compassion.

When it comes to developing arguments, the effort each team invests into debate determines the win/loss binary.  Ever wonder why people work without an emotional investment in the process that defines their labor?

For example, when I hear extinction meta-argument it makes me wonder about a great many things.  Every tournament I hear something like this: "If the world of the alternative does not succeed Iran will marry North Korea and form a bipolar nuclear axis of evil that will unleash an apocalyptic zombie Armageddon upon the world."  This immediately invokes a couple questions: 1) Is this believable or persuasive? 2) Has anything resembling this ever happened in the past? 3) If so, will I hear warrants that clearly link the claim to the evidence? 4) If not, could this space in the block be filled with something more significant?

The moral of the story can be found in Aesop's Fable of the North Wind and the Sun.  Please shine brilliantly and be persistent in your scholarship.

Judging: 

I have a preference for traditional debate, but it is not exclusionary.  I simply want to hear well-developed arguments. What this means is doing more showing than telling.  Walk me through the structure of your case.  Give me an overview to tune my ear.  Show me how one argument links to the next and use high quality evidence.  Develop a worldview for me, and be clear about the status quo.  Also, what does the world of the alternative look like, sound like, and feel like?  Sometimes a narrative will work better than other forms of evidence, particularly in critiques.

Note to spreaders: Please carefully consider what I can and cannot hear during your constructive speeches.  Can you engage me in a persuasive conversation?  Be detailed and clear with the tags.  I need to know where I am in your argument.

I am very open to Ks, but I need to hear evidence that grounds a K in the real.  How does your critique manifest in the material world?  Base your framework on a solid syllogism.  I will be listening carefully for logical fallacies.  Teams who can pick them out will have an advantage.  Lastly, I need to see clash over topicality demonstrated.  If your team runs a complicated K, show me how it directly relates to the resolution.  Stay on message as much as possible, particularly in cross.

Lastly, I do not have a background in technical debate and gamesmanship will probably be lost on me.  Therefore, I generally ignore complaints about abuse or ungrounded claims to fairness and topicality.  Use that time more wisely because I am not flowing it--unless it is central to your case.

Background:  Fresno State, M.A. in Communication.  Cal State Monterey Bay, B.A. in Human Communication with a minor in Journalism.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Debated for San Francisco State (2007-2011) and have been coaching there for the last two years. 

Run what you want, what you are good at, what is strategic and what you are excited about. I will listen to it. I enjoy strategy and creativity. I am here to evaluate what you spend most of your time doing, not to make you feel bad if I disagree with your style/content.

Although… I do value smart, warranted, truthful arguments over a six second extension with no historical or well thought out basis. Quality over quantity. Please make your tags full sentences. “Plan key” and “extinction” are not even claims. 

Paperless: Prep is running until the flash drive is out of the computer. Put things in the order that you will read them. Not everyone has experience with paperless debate and it’s unfair to expect the other team to navigate an unfamiliar, unorganized document.

Framework: While I challenge you to engage the other team’s argument, I can enjoy when framework is explained in a creative and nuanced fashion. The more you do application and framing work on your own, the better it will be. The race to the middle isn't as persuasive to me as other people. I do like strategic ways to prove that the affirmative’s advocacy is not a "political" act or that somehow they can't "solve" the impacts they claim. 

Theory: Warrant and apply. I won't be the best for a theoretical showdown, to be honest. But I have always thought some things were silly. Like aff conditionality, what's up with that? 

Counterplans & Disads: Do your thing. That comment about making your tags full sentences applies here too. I am big on internal links. Have them, explain them, tell a story. Spend more time discussing timeframe and probability over magnitude. 

Critical affirmatives or performance: I am comfortable here although I have high standards for explanation. Have a strong defense of your method. If you have large critical impacts, let me know what your method does to resolve, deal with, uncover and so on, what you are criticizing, even if it is within the debate space. A role of the ballot is needed, but try and distinguish it from your advocacy/action, etc. 

Ks/K v K debate: While I find myself in these debates the most, they often tend to devolve quickly. Diversity and nuance of argument is important. I would rather see you, the debater, be clear and strategic in your explanation than assume I read same literature as you. Use the other team's evidence to contextualize your links, always. Have a role of the ballot. How does that interact with how the other team would like me to evaluate the debate? Be clear how your alternative solves the case or why if it doesn’t, what it does instead. If you don’t want to go for the alternative and instead want to go for the larger case turn and/or presumption duo, I am into that too but it should be clear. 

Flow: While I default to flowing in columns, I pay close attention to things happening outside of the line by line such as aesthetic, affect, non-verbal signals, and so on. Be clear and warrant if you would like me to flow differently, otherwise I will default to the way that helps me organize best. I flow to remember things, not because I think debate is only a chess match.

Important Things: I am sensitive to the way race, gender, class, and sexuality inform debate performance and participation. I am also particularly aware of the ways masculinity is performed and rewarded in this activity (both in and out of debates by both debaters and coaches). I find it uncomfortable, pretentious, exclusive and desperate. I think self-reflexivity is needed at both ends of the ideological spectrum and will voice my opinion on such issues when I feel necessary.

You can have fun and take debate seriously at the same time. Laugh, be nice to your opponents and your partner, make friends, be smart and make debate what you want it to be.

Hi everybody, I debated at San Francisco State University for a few years then coached at Pepperdine for 2 years during my masters program. I’m down for all arguments; I would prefer a smart analytical argument to speed-reading arguments you don’t understand/can’t explain. Debate’s supposed to be educational and fun so do your thing and don’t be rude or say mean things. 

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

I update this google doc way more than I do my tabroom account (the last update was from 2015 - yikes!):

https://tinyurl.com/yd7ndhyh

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.

I’m pretty fresh to the debate realm, so just do such a fantastic job that I simply must vote for you! I’ve been teaching argumentation and persuasion to students in higher ed for the last 6+ years, so while policy debate is new to me, good argumentation (claim + evidence + warrant), is not.

Spreading is an interesting concept, but if you cannot do it with clarity and precision, please avoid it. In general I can follow you, if you are well organized, slow down on tags, and you do not make several assumptions without explaining them. Also, call me old fashioned, but I like a bit of eye-contact and non-verbal pathos.

Regarding debate theory, I’m open to listening as long as you are clear and translate your theory briefs into language I will understand.

Let’s run a clean game, I’m a big fan of humility. Being passionate is fine, as long as you are polite and cordial towards your opponents.

If you are going to run a critical argument, make sure you understand the philosophies of the people you are quoting. Also, please avoid assuming that I know all of the underlying nuances of the philosopher/philosophy, so make sure this is clear. Finally, being able to explain how critical theory intersects, and should challenge policy itself is more important that an injustice overview of the status quo. I will not accept any alt that says “reject the aff,” I would like a solution or a new philosophical belief system.

I enjoy watching clever debates with strong impact analysis and sexy links. Be really strong at the internal link level, and you need to impact out all of your arguments.

I view debate as a game and the best arguments win. I am a policy judge and evaluate based on stock issues. I do not like critiques, nor am a fan of performance. I don’t have a problem with speed, but if it doesn’t make it to my flow, I won’t consider it in my decision. Make sure your tags are clear. Don’t use debate terminology with no explanation. I should not make the connections between arguments, this should occur in your speech. I do call for cards regularly, especially if they are disputed in the round.

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

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell

DOF @ CSU, Long Beach

Years in Debate: 16 | Rounds Judged this Year: 100+ | Months without a Weekend: 1.5

I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with debate in general. I’ve made a list of things that make me frustrated. If you want to win and earn pretty speaker points, please heed these suggestions.

1. I believe that things in the world are empirically observable, testable, and verifiable. I will fact check your arguments in debate. I will NOT evaluate any argument that cannot be independently verified as an empirically observable fact.

2. While I closely follow the news, I’m not a policy maker, nor do I intend to be one. I view my social function as a public intellectual and a critic of argument. As such, I evaluate quality of argument (not quantity) and, following Stephen Toulmin, evaluate arguments based on propositional logic. If you don’t have data and warrants to every claim you make, I WILL NOT evaluate them.

3. I use a “running clock” approach to Parli. This means that when one speech ends, either the next speech or prep time begins. Everything is timed, including roadmaps/orders, flash drives etc.

4. I don’t flow overviews. If you want me to flow your arguments, make them on the line-by-line debate.

5. I will not vote for impacts without specific scenarios. “Israel freakout” is not an impact scenario unless you identify flashpoints of conflict averted/caused by the plan. FYI: I don’t think “Dehumanization” is a meaningful phrase or heuristic concept, with my insincere apology to David Berube.

6. If the alternative to your critique is “reject,” you are stuck defending the status quo. I think that’s a dumb choice. But, hey, it’s your choice to make.

7. Procedural arguments are always already a question of ground; I won’t pull the trigger unless you can identify specific, demonstrable, in-round ground loss. Also, I’ve been involved in policy debate since 1996, Parli debate since 2004; your “collapse of the activity” arguments are hopelessly non-unique AND there’s an alternate causality—it’s a question of accessibility, language, and politics. If you really want to prevent the collapse of debate, adopt a novice and recruit for your team.

8. I’m a recovering policy debater. As it turns out, I love evidence. The more data you can provide, the better you’ll do in front of me.

9. I’m a Foucaultian, not a sociobiologist. If you make arguments about “non topical affs opening new neural pathways,” or “debating about the real world causes depression,” I probably won’t give them much merit.

10. Debaters have a responsibility to their communities. Your university spends thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to travel to tournaments. As such, I am firmly convinced that you have to do more than talk to people in rooms. This isn’t about your pref sheet; it’s about your humanity. BE A LINK TURN. Challenge the status quo.

I am an argument critic who teaches logic for a living. If you do not answer the resolutional question, you are not likely to win my ballot. I think teams that refuse to engage the resolution are simply lacking in creativty. If you don't want to debate the resolution, you should not be in the activity. 

I have been in the debate activity for more than 3 decades. I have committed my life to understanding, performing, and theorizing about argument and its practice. I promise you that I understand debate better than you do. So, please do not presume that because I did not vote for your argument that this means I don't understand it. It means that you didn't explain it clearly enough. 

Stylistically, I love fast debates with a high level of strategy. I also love GOOD theory debates, but hate BAD theory debates even more than I like good ones. Please do not tell me that your PERM is to implement all but the non-competitive parts of the plan. That sentence makes abosolutely no logical sense. If this sentence comes out of your mouth, you will have just demonstrated to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't spew a bunch of debate jargon at me, expecting me to do the work of interpreting what you are tring to say. Make an argument that makes sense. 

1.My ability to flow has diminished greatly, please slow down when debating in front of me.

2. I find debate "theory" to be: a) rarely theoretical, and; b) uninteresting and generally unnecessarily meticulous to the point of being incomprehensible and/or of real consequence. That stated, you should aim for clarity above all else in theory debates. I am not a fan (at all) of hypothetical, "its not what you do, its what you justify" arguments to warrant voting against a team: I prefer substantive clash. Given my preference for policy frameworks, this still holds true. I'd rather see you engage a team on the substance of what they argue than hide behind form to win a debate.

3. I expect debaters to behave like professionals when debating. Please be polite. I have a very low tolerance for behaviors considered inappropriate outside the safety of our setting. I allocate low speaker points to those who engage in rude, condescending, and obnoxious behaviors. Please limit/restrict your use of profanity, intimidation, insults, ad hominems, etc., when debating in front of me.

-Answer questions directed to you, ask your own cross-ex questions as much as possible. Gain expereince talking about ideas/interrogating the ideas of others; allow your partner to be responsible for their own questions, to take responsibility for their cross-ex. I don't mind the occasional help or clarification from a partner, but domination by one, or worse a crazy free for all by all, don't empower participants. You're here to gain advocacy skills and so is your partner, do your best to facilitate that.

4. Framework: I prefer that debaters argue about resolution-specific policy options. I would rather not try to adjudicate unfocused, non-resolutionally germane philosophical claims, nor simply bear witness to identity politics that are unrelated to/disconnected from the plan/resolution. Consider this closely: the more you communicate about how (i.e., "frame") the substance of your claims connect to the plan/resolution, the more likely I am to find them relevant. The burden is on you, as a speaker, to make the connections apparent and relevant to the topic. That stated, if a team advances a non-"traditional" set of arguments (aff or neg), teasing out the policy considerations (at least in front of me)  is key to engaging them, not just suggesting that thier type of advocacy warrants automatic rejection.

-I think that policy debate's model of pedagogy (research driven, linear-based communication, simulated government/state based action) is quite empowering, but I also understand that it is not even close to being perfect, which means I'm willing to entertain challenges to its form and content. But, please do more than make vague references to education and fairness about the benefits of an approach to debate, as well as the impediments of other approaches to debate, in front of me: push yourself to expand how you discuss and debate these impacts.Why does a sustained focus on elite research and policy making make for good education? Why are topic foci far outside of the life experiences of most who debate good for education? How do "far-removed" topics establish fairness better than discussing situated life experiences? Why/how does criticizing a discourse community for its norms increase education? Why is a focus on micro vs. macro politics more educational, more fair? Why does talking about our own experience as oppossed to learning about others' experiences and/or learning through scholarship produce better empowerment/education? Developing the ability to expand on answers to these questions makes listening to framework debates AND THEIR ANALOGIC ADVOCACY (meaning keep the substance of your advocacy, critical or "policy" alive in the round)  far more enjoyable and productive.

-That said, I prefer to hear debates about "how" and "why" energy policy should be changed. I prefer that the affirmative advance a topical plan, that is, a specific call for the United States Federal Government to increase incentives or reduce restrictions to facilty energy production in the United States. Negative teams, however, need to do more than invoke my persoanl preference in order to win a framework or T argument: develop a series of arguments that explain why--and that move past debate norms of simply labeling these headings "fairness" and/or "education"--the affirmative/negative has not met reasonable burdens of proof in establishing the usefulness of their approach.

-I am more likely to vote for a topic specific/topic-relevant critical approach/kritik than I am to vote for a generic "catch-all" position. This means that both: a) the way you present the argument, and; b) your framing of its relevance in the debate need to demonstrate more than a general/tangential connection to what has occured in the 1AC/1NC. When advancing critical arguments, make the relevance as clear, and as soon, as possible. The more nuanced your "links" are, the easier it is for me to integrate into my decision calculus. Repeating a concept or phrase from the introduction of the argument to the final appeal of the 2NR/2AR is less likely to gain my adherence.

5. Plan/Counterplan Debates. I enjoy the latitude of plan/counterplan debates: the more nuanced the better. Solvency deficit arguments, in particular, provide the most useful "out of debate" learning opportunities. As a result, I am more than willing to vote for a plan/cp based on solvency deficit as a net benefit, in conjunction with a credible disad (or case advantage) of some type. In order to do this, your counterplan text should be nuanced and in the 1NC you should clearly establish how it gains aff solvecny/advanatage ground. Also, specific solvency evidence is a must, we ask it of the aff, so fair reciprocity means we should require it of the neg too. 

-I think competition should be an intese debate. Depending on the complexity of contrasting agents, actions, and/or both, resolving competition turns on how well debaters engage solvency discussions, legal jurisdiction arguments, delegation of power/managerial reach and respoonsibility (think congress vs. executive action), preemptive legal status/rights (think federal vs. states CP), etc., However, I also think that affs should have to defend THEIR exact plan, as worded. Permutation debates should involve evidence. Bringing attention to the fact that mutual exclusivity rarely characterizes competing policy options lacks rigor. Evidence and detailed explanations about how the permutation recasts the role of DAs, solvency deficits, and political intent/philosophical underpinnings in the round significantly increases both the strength and the appeal of this argument. I prefer affirmatives argue solvency deficit and disadvantage arguments against CPs over permutation and theory positions. In short, I view expedient, structural, and/or philosophical competition as fair game when resolving plan-counterplan competition debates.

6. I adopt the role of rhetorical critic of argument within a policy making paradigm. For me. this means that how you talk about your arguments is almost as important as the substance of the arguments. Communication--the way you frame, develop, respond to, and extend arguments in the round--is just as important as evidence. I tend to vote as much on the quality of work debaters do in the round as I do on the probable, intrinsic appeal of the ideas. You may be right about a series of claims, but if you under-develop these claims in response to your opponents' challenges, chances are you will not win them.

7. If you want me to adjudicate the round in a manner that differs from a policy-making paradigm, then please articulate clearly HOW I can/should modify particular default behaviors in accordance with your request (should I not flow?, should I value potential emotive response over empirical/historical studies?, ie., be clear about how I might modify my behaviors as a judge to best grasp your preferred mode of advocacy) . Absent clear and compelling recommendations to base my decision otherwise, I weigh the quality and quantity of direct advocacy and of evidentiary support in concert with linear argument development on the flow to determine who controls particular arguments and, ultimately, who wins the round.

8. I think we should all make concerted and sincere attempts to minimize some of the difficulties we're still encountering with paperless debate: computer crashes, incompatible files/software, having a viewing computer for teams that do not debate paperless, etc., While I'm tolerant of time concerns as we transition to paperless, I will start prep time for the responsible team if delays persist more than 5 minutes. I won't be rude or mean about it, but we do have to minimize the time over-runs that paperless has brought to our activity..

Questions? Just ask: cjskiles@gmail.com

co-Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2019

Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2010

3 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Wayne State)

2 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Miami University , Ohio - sadly, this program no longer exists)

4 years debate, Novice – Open (John Carroll University - sadly, this program no longer exists)

I'm an Associate Professor at CSUF in the Human Communication Department. My research interests include rhetorical theory and criticism, critical/cultural theory, in particular feminist and queer studies especially related to body rhetoric. As a critic, I put a great deal of time and effort into making my decision – I like to be thorough. As a result, you can make my job a lot easier if you are clear and specific in the last rebuttals. Frame the debates well by telling me where I should cast my ballot and why. Tell me what evidence I should read and why. Here’s what else you should know about me:

The topic: Since I started directing, I cut fewer cards on the topic and, as a result, do not necessarily know all the acronyms or jargon on the topic. Currently and moving forward, I expect to complete little topic-specific research so you will need to educate me on your affirmative and case-specific disadvantages. Explain your case or DA and its advantages/parts in the round. Provide clear standards and warrants for Topicality arguments that reference the resolution. While I may proceed cautiously with kritiks that seem dependent on "links of omission," I am open to cases that creatively connect to the topic and will often view cases that some would label untopical completely acceptable if they have a good defense. Additionally, anyone can make any argument on on why I should be compelled to listen to an argument, and I will do my best to weight such arguments objectively. (More on topicality below). Generally this understanding of my perspective of debate should help you convince me to vote for your position.

Flowing: Please note that when judging online debates I appreciate teams that slightly minimize their speed and work extra hard on clarity and articulation given the technical issues that can arise. Otherwise, I’m generally fine with speed and have a pretty decent flow, however please be clear on your tags and cites, it just makes my life a lot easier. It is possible to go too fast for me, especially on theory debates; if you plan on going for the argument or if you think the argument could threaten your success in the round, your time is best spent slowing down just a bit. This is really good advice for blippy theory, framework, or topicality debates.

Paradigm/Framework: I will vote on anything if it’s a good argument and impacted. My own experience as a debater has left me equipped to judge in a general policy paradigm, however, I am very much open to the idea of alternative debate paradigms, such as performance debate, and since coming to Cal State Fullerton, I primarily coach and watch these types of debates. I tend to err on the side of allowing alternative forms of argumentation as long as the other team has reasonable ground to debate. I will vote on anything, as long as the argument is clear and I understand what I am voting on. I primarily see debate arguments as either offensive or defensive claims and although I think it is much easier to win with offense in the debate, I am willing to vote for compelling defensive arguments. I avoid putting myself in debate rounds whenever possible, but if all the debaters fail to make their position clear, I am forced to intervene and weigh impacts from a strictly utilitarian perspective. I like to be included in the exchange of speech docs especially given that I will need to interpretation the weight and importance of some evidence if the work is not done for me by the debaters. If I read a lot cards after the round it’s probably because you failed to explain the timeframe, magnitude, or probability of the impact, or because you failed to explain the warrants in your evidence. It could also mean that it’s simply a close round, and that both teams did such a nice job explaining their arguments that I need to resort to cards to determine who provides the most persuasive story as supported by the evidence. In short, explain your frameworks and impacts throughout the debate and especially at the end of the round.

Kritiks/Framework: To be honest, I probably enjoy these debates the best, and I am probably most equipped to judge critical rounds. I have a strong working knowledge of post-structural theorists, including Butler, Derrida, and Foucault. I have a decent understanding of Wilderson/antiblackness and Lacanian/Zizek theory but please be clear to explain particular components of your K, especially if it is psychoanalysis. Debaters tend to bastardize the philosophy for all these theorists so don't expect that just because I read these authors I automatically understand the way you use them or that I understand all of a critical theorists’ jargon. The argument needs to be clear in its explanation and impact in the round. If I don’t know what it means to vote for a kritik, I probably won’t vote on it. Also, have a clear framework – if the framework is clear, I am more than willing to evaluate the kritik. The same goes for performance. I am wary of alternatives that do little but suggest they can solve the entirety of the aff plan. At the same time, I question alternatives that are too utopian. Over the years, I have changed my approach to "rules," such as the American Debate Association (ADA) rules; anything is debatable, especially "rules." Also, I take language kritiks and other impacts with in round implications seriously (although just because the team links to the argument that does not necessarily mean that the opponents win the debate; the team running the argument needs to impact). For example, if a teams fails to use gender-neutral language, and they fail to answer the kritik appropriately, I am certainly willing to pull the trigger here if the opposing team can provide compelling implications.

Disadvantages: Although I tend to watch critical debates, I can evaluate traditional, realist-framework debates. But, be sure to tell clear stories on Politics DAs and Economics scenarios – don’t assume I know the internal link stories – I’ve never taken a class in Economics and I was not a political science major. Don’t simply revert to referencing the claims of political theory on politics without explaining the warrants.

Counterplans/Theory/Topicality: I will consider and vote on theory debates, especially CP theory, however you should make sure you are clear with the warrants with your arguments, do not assume that I know that any one particular theory argument means, and do not expect me to vote on blip theory arguments/voters. Proving abuse/or explaining the impact is necessary; if the risk of the impact is legitimate, I will vote here. I am certainly willing to consider and vote on topicality and generally think affirmatives need an offensive approach to their claim's that their case is topical. Although I am lenient on what I consider topical, if the negative proves that the affirmative is not playing fair or if the activity is suffering as a result of these types of cases (or other in-round impacts), I will certainly pull the trigger. When a team goes for topicality, they should invest the majority of the 2NR on this flow. Regarding arguments like ASPEC and Vagueness, you have to work a lot harder when convincing me to vote on arguments.

When debating negative: Don’t undercover the case. If you do not go for case turns or take-outs, be sure your positions actually complete with the Aff’s solvency claims.

Finally, show respect to your opponents, your partner and myself. I really enjoy debates that are funny and/or passionate but also are friendly and collegial. Please do not steal prep time. I won’t count sending/receiving evidence as part of prep time, but don’t abuse the privilege. Some of us really need to pick up this process or you will not leave me sufficient time to adjudicate your decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and have fun!!!

Background: I debated for 4 years at Cal Poly SLO. 

CSUN is my first tournament on this topic, so go semi-easy on me with the acronyms. I've sat through a couple of practice rounds and I'm versed in the topic lit, but keep me in the loop. 

Affs should affirm the resolution as a good idea, or risk an uphill battle for my ballot. 

Kritiks: I sometimes think that these debates devolve to ultra simplistic claims that are not contextualized to the aff. Specific link arguments, and explanation of why K outweighs the aff are undervalued in the midst of debate rounds.

Please do not hesitate to ask me any additional questions.