David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Jovan Hernandez - LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation - Homestead High School

Email: chidori4444@gmail.com

Experience with Debate: I have competed in LD Debate for 3 years of my high school career and have gone on to compete in both State and Nationals. With that being said, I have 1 year of judging, so I hope to give out insightful and constructive ballots that'll help in the future. Also, to make sure, I am NOT a policy or PF judge, so, if I do judge that category, excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge:

Speed - I do not like speed, but as long as you're not spreading and going at a pace that Eminem would be jealous of, then we're good.

Framework - Your framework should relate to your case meaning that how your case goes has to be able to link into both your value and criterion. Frameworks should be relatively easy to understand and be easy to debate, however, if you're able to explain a hard-to-understand framework in rebuttals, then go for it.

Theory Cases - Do not do them. If you do a Theory case, do so at your own risk because I have little understanding of them and if you can't clearly define each parts of the case and how your case is better, Im not likely to pick it up.

K's - The most crucial thing for me is that the alternative has to be able to solve your opponent's harms and whatever you present as being flawed within the Status quo, if you can't do that and the opponent is able to argue that your alternative doesn't work, then it will be weighed heavily against you.

Clash - Clash should be both a battle of analysis and card attacks. Addressing the evidence within a card and the argument that surrounds the cards presented is crucial, so, being able to explain each card's faults and the faults of the case is needed, otherwise it's two debaters spewing facts(which do not care about your feelings) at each other.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that helps me out with flowing your arguments better and keeping everything in a orderly fashion

Hello, I am a new judge, I vote on the flow. I debated for 4 years in LD in high school on the local and nat circuit, I only evaluate the flow and I value clash and lbl, otherwise you wont get my vote

I like arguments to be clear and structured, thanks

I primarily ran Util when I was on the traditional circuit, which is what I presume most of NCFLs will be, I value strategic use of time and crossex. Speaks are determined by strategic moves such as collapsing.

Email me at: davidjia39@gmail.com

I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.

Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

01rafe0li@gmail.com [zeros not o's]

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

-Roadmaps seem pointless, if you are efficient, organized, and signpost well you shouldn't need to

I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

**SPEAKS**

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.4 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-27.9 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.4 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-28.9 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.4 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

* General Strat

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

• Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

* Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

* General Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

* CP

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

* DA

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

My name is Jon Neumann. I debated many years ago in high school, but this is my first year judging debate. I work as an attorney and I litigate complex product liability cases on behalf of injured plaintiffs.

What I like to see in a debate:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. I will announce "clear" if necessary, but know that doing so will entail a reduction in your speaker points.

2. I will consider "weighing" as a positive evaluation factor. Demonstrating to me how your case outweighs your opponent’s through impact calc is extremely important.

3. After you read a block, please explain how the block applies to your opponent’s argument. If you read a block without indicating what it’s attacking, I likely won’t understand your attack.

4. Try to go line by line (answering your opponents arguments in the order they raise them). This makes rebuttals clear and easy to understand.

5. Be assertive in cross examination. It will affect your speaker points.

6. I like extinction and societal well being arguments, but I need clear linkage to the extinction impact. Really sell the extinction.

7. Please try to utilize all of your available time, but do not exceed the time limits.

What I don’t like:

1. I tend not to side with structural violence cases. If you run a structural violence case, I need you to really convince me that your framework and impacts are the most important.

2. Unorganized rebuttals. These make debates extremely messy and hard to follow.

3. Don’t run Kritiks. I’m inexperienced when it comes to more complex cases (counterplans are fine).

4. Don’t disrespect your opponent or your judge. Debate should be civil.

TL;DR: I'm cool with whatever as long as you understand it and explain it so that I do too. If you run something complex and don't explain it well, that's your fault because I won't understand it either. I've got a decent background with progressive debate so it should be fine, but if it's super philosophical pls explain it well. I don't particularly like theory or t unless there's a valid reason for running it. Don't run anything offensive or I'll automatically drop you. Provide a trigger warning (if needed) out of respect for everyone in the round. Speed is fine.

put me on the email chain!: kmperez555@gmail.com

Background: I debated for Golda Meir for four years in LD. I am a current student at UW-Madison majoring in Legal Studies and Chicane/Latine Studies, with certificates in Public Policy and Criminal Justice. My debate experience ranges from local circuit to national circuit tournaments. I've judged a multiple of tournaments, so please treat me like any other past debater! I don't judge that frequently anymore so I might ask what the resolution is.

General In-Round Things:

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow down on tags and anything else important that you really want on my flow. I'll say clear as much as I can. Be mindful and do it with purpose.

Framework: You should have at least some form of it. Whether that's a value/value criterion or a role of the ballot, there should be something telling me from what lense I should look at for what you're saying. If you end up running a very philosophical fw, articulate it well for me in round. Do not just say that both of your fw's are a wash, that's not true. You still need to evaluate it and stress it within case.

Theory/T: I'll evaluate it only if I need to and only if there is something inherently abusive in round. Don't just run it because you think its fun or want to do for time constraints. I'm not a big fan of T but if it's necessary I'll evaluate it!

Kritiks: These are great, but be sure to explain it well for me especially if it is super philosophical/technical or out of the box. Be sure to tell me how the alt solves!

Performance: I have not heard this in a long time, but I love this! Explain in round impacts clearly!

Plans/CPs/PICS: I'll listen to them but I just don't there is enough time to really go through it. I'll vote for it but you have to do a really good job at explaining why the rest is bad/how the resolution is a worse alternative. I think CPs only work if there's a plan but I will evaluate them!

DAs: These are great, but just be clear and explain in round impacts well!

Other things: Clear voters. Tell me exactly what I need to vote on and why. Please and I can not stress this enough but please tell me why your impacts matter and weigh them throughout the round, not just at the end. Tell me why your competitor's world is innately bad. Don't just extend your warrants but explain to me why they matter in your world or how you do it better than your opponents world. If I had to evaluate the round on my own and you leave room for me to analyze it, then it puts a ton of work on my end, so please weigh everything.

Miscellaneous:

- I typically time each speech but I do forget so please time yourselves. Open prep is fine with me as long as both debaters agree with it.

- I don't really care whether you sit or stand in round unless it's like an elim round. If its a virtual tournament, I have no preference for having your cameras on. Do what's most comfortable to you.

- I love when competitors clash especially during CX, so just generally clash but don't be rude about it. It will ruin your speaks if you are out-right rude to your opponent.

- I will listen to outrageous (out of the box cases) and I find them fun. So if you are willing to do it and take the risk, go for it!

- Any -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. You'll get the lowest speaks I can give and I'll automatically drop you. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful.

- I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive. Just don't be a dick please especially when competing with opponents that have a lower skill difference.

- Have fun. If you have any questions or comments, please email me! (same one as above)

Congressional Debate

TL;DR: I value the overall content of the speech and your points, rather than the quality. However, since it is a Speech activity, I do like it when debaters are very clear about their points following a long list of extensions as to why one should or should not be able to pass/fail a particular bill. It provides a ton of clash! Don't run or say anything offensive, or I'll give you the lowest speaks I can give! Any further questions, just ask me before session!

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy. Please be clear about when you are switching contentions and be sure to weigh your impacts clearly, don't assume that us judges are making the same connections that you are. If you run a one contention case, please have strong links. Please spell out your impacts, Imperialism isn't an impact, you need to tell me why imperalism is bad. As a judge I won't let my background influince my decision, but that does meen you need to tell me exactly what your impacts meens in terms of qountifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of monye, increce in crime, global destabilisation, that kind of thing.

Congress:

I've been judging Congress for 6 years now, and of course, all the basic things are important: good projection, good variation in vocal tone and volume for emphasis, and most importantly, a cohesive, original argument. In addition, please be respectful of your competitors; assertive speech styles are fine, but avoid ad hominem attacks. Similarly, when asking questions, don't interrupt the answerer when they haven't even finished a sentence yet; again, find the line between assertive and just plain rude. Make sure your introduction doesn't have a jarring shift in tone when compared to the rest of your speech. Lots of people enjoy funny intros, but they don't really work if you give a speech about war crimes, for example. Crystalizing is good, but if you have an entire speech that's just crystalizing, you end up with something that is more like 6 30-second long speeches instead of a single 3-minute speech, so don't go overboard with it. Make sure if you use the same arguments as a previous speaker, you do something new with it, or go in greater depth in a specific aspect of the argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the judges that you thought the previous speaker did a really good job.

A smaller thing, but it still bugs me when it happens, please don't use debate lingo in congress when it doesn't make grammatical sense without a debate background, for example "sqo solves" is not something that makes sense unless you do debate and this isn't the place for that.

Email: Oscarh.rich@gmail.com

I debated PF for four years in high school and have been judging PF for 3 years. This being said this is my first year judging LD.

As such, I am able to roll with technical arguments, but I usually base my round off of value criterions and contention level arguments. I am a flow judge, I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one over the other. I am cool with speed, but make sure you present your argument coherently otherwise I will probably miss your argument and will not flow it through the round. I am a big fan of clash and particularly look for debaters to challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttal, in other words, are able to think on their feet. Other than that, be courteous towards one another, and have fun it is your debate after all.

I am a lay judge. Please speak clearly, do not speed and don't run theory cases. Ensure you argue your framework well, and singpost your speeches clearly. If you intend to run a counter plan, know how to do so, (if you are novice you probably don't know how to do so).