Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Congress

I'm a relatively traditional judge. Remember that you are giving a speech and not reading an expository essay, so state clearly why you support or oppose the legislation on the table. I will judge substance primarily, but style does matter in the US Congress and, by extension, in a simulated one. The evidence you present should be valid and timely in nature as well as sourced appropriately. Most sources contain bias of some sort, but avoid citing McDonalds when you're arguing about the health benefits of cheeseburgers. Argue the substance and merits of the bill rather than technicalities, for instance an imprecise statistic in a bill is not a primary cause for negation. Spreading during a congressional debate is never effective. Both practical and moral/ethical arguments are appropriate.

After the initial speeches lay out arguments for and against the bill, effective speakers should make an effort to reference other speakers and reject or support their arguments in addition to bringing up new or more compelling ones where the opportunity exists. Prepared speeches are appropriate but the best speakers will be able to aggregate previous conversations and address them with their time on the floor. A speech with some verbal miscues that is relevant to the conversation happening in the session is better than a perfectly delivered canned speech prepared fully in advance. Questioning can be direct and even combative at times, but both questioner and respondent should seek to engage on substantive issues and, of course, with appropriate decorum.

The most effective congressional speakers are able to control the primary arguments being debated on the floor throughout the session. A representative who controls the message even when they are not speaking will receive additional consideration.

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

Am updating this for NSDA Districts March 2024; hopefully by mentioning that fact it will force me to keep this updated fairly regularly J

Background/ experience, overall/this year: I have extensive experience as a former competitor, coach, and judge over a time period of like 4 decades or so :) I am comfortable judging in all formats, Policy. L-D, Public Forum, etc. Have judged hundreds of rounds over those years, frequencies vary year by year, but a decent amount these past several years so I am not “rusty.” (More on that in a second here). Judged and coached mostly at the high school but also a bit in college; much more in Policy and L-D than P-F but not unfamiliar with that format. The full gamut from state champions, national champions , TOC qualifiers all the way down to “junior high pre-novice,” the full gamut.

This year I have judged a very few LD and PF rounds, can count on one hand, but have not judged any Policy rounds. I have kept myself up with the topic, though, so I’m not completely uninformed; still, consider that especially with respect to the next section.

One thing which I would argue follows necessarily from the above, but which I ought to make explicit—given the above, I will not participate in, and do not believe it to be acceptable, the “flash-drive-sharing WITH THE JUDGE” of speeches/evidence during the round. It’s okay with the other team; I will ask for ev. after the round if I need to clarify any specific question that I have about it, but, I will not engage in that practice. FYI fwiw and the entire “Online” thing over the past several years has made things very challenging; now that we're largely out of that, the "regular rules" of in-person, all-in-the-same-room debating should apply.

For the rest of this, maybe this very brief one-paragraph “intro” will be all you need to know. In a conversation with a very-experienced (college) debate coach and judge, former debater and all that, he said something that I ought to start out with, and maybe by saying this I can spare the rest of all of this, or you can spare the reading of it. He said, “Most judges are ‘normal scientists’.” I guess that most are, many debaters (but maybe not as many debaters as judges!!!) are as well, and I guess that I am too, “writ large” admittedly. Still, I have spent a lot of time with those who arenot, there are plenty of them out there even if that’s only a result of the “law of large numbers,” I believe that sometimes they bring up points which need to be addressed, and, for those who would like to know exactly where I stand on those issues and how and where I draw the borders of “normal science,” well, you can read the rest of this. Or just stop here, or read it selectively, any way is fine with me. People always tell me when I start writing like this, though, “You should write a book,” and some of these topics do need book-length treatment, so maybe I should do that, and maybe this is a start.

Here goes

Judging style, ”in round” preferences/”rules.” In any debate, I hold that debaters have to “get the arguments for that round into that round.” Falling generally under the broad category of tabula rasa, that means I will listen to “anything” BUT that “anything” has to recognizably be presented as an argument in that particular round. Note that I mentioned above that I haven’t judged any Policy rounds this season. At this late point in the season, there are likely tons of things that “everyone”/most everyone might take for granted. I will still hold that that needs to be brought, formally, into that particular ground. To use examples from this year's Policy resolution, but they can be cross-applied to all forms of debate: "Projected dates of Social Security 'insolvency'?" Get that evidence into this round!!!! "Poverty level, regional variations thereof?" Get that evidence into this round!!!!! —intothis round!!!!! I would say the same thing if I’d judged 65 rounds on this year’s topic, the fact that I haven’t only underscores what I just said above. People who look at my flows after rounds sometimes see them as almost stenographic records of the rounds; I am glad that people can look at them and say that. Still, at the beginning of each and every round, those flows are blank sheets of paper, everything that gets written on to them is/was brought up in that round. If you want me to vote on it, get it into the round!!!!

“Paradigm” properly understood and more fully discussed, and some other important terms and concepts: I am comfortable with most paradigms properly understood. I ought to emphasize the “properly understood” there, and will do so in a second, but, most debates fall naturally into, and can be fully debated and judged within, one or even several of the major paradigms. Debating exactly which one, a/k/a a “Theory Debate,” is generally unwise, as most debates (most “legitimate” debates!!!) tend to fall naturally into a given paradigm, a “best fit” of sorts, so to try to argue these is generally unwise (caveat above was/is the word “legitimate” and more on that in a bit); generally, there’s a way that the arguments have been put forth that “makes enough sense that it ought to be followed through with.” [ …-> Define the word “gene” in genetics or medicine—“it depends but it fits where and how you’re using it”]

While theory debates seem to have gotten their starts in Policy, it seems like they're creeping into other forms of debate. I am not a fan of that, as they haven't gone well in Policy, but, to weigh in on one of what I guess are several or even many that may be circulating in LD (or BQ, possibly), and just one of what may be many, I would basically concur with a notion that an LD resolution (all resolutions, I would say) is "propositional." There are many discussions about that, as I see online if not in actual rounds; note that that does not necessarily impose the ridiculous burdens which many have taken that to mean, but, basically, if push comes to shove, I will agree with that notion.

Terms/concepts: The above does need to be unpacked in certain important places, and doing so fully would require a book-length exposition. (Gee, really??!!! In debate theory??!!!!) Taking one term above, and another “concept,” and addressing those two here, and the other “elephant in the room” in a separate section below: Term--“Legitimate” (or “legitimate debate/ legitimate argument”)—here I would mean the old-fashioned “blue socks” type of argument, and while I am guessing that those are out of fashion (yay!!!!!) I will still mention that here, if only to give you a sense of what I mean by “legitimate”—that is, “germane” or “non-non sequiturs.” Into this I would also add the old (hopefully old!!!!) tactic (if it even rises to that!!!) of a 1NC (or even 1AC!) reading like an Aesop’s Fable then unpacking it into (pseudo) Voting Issues in their later speeches. Absent said unpacking being a necessary interpretation, I would not consider that to be “legitimate.” So, those are extreme, but, well, just to get these out there. (I would be in very high spirits if many current debaters or even judges or even coaches had no idea what I was talking about there!!!!)

Back to “Paradigms,” Part Two: I will say something similar—albeit not that far out!!!—about “paradigms,” properly understood. A “paradigm” is something that can be used as a backdrop for a round to be judged/decided, I guess that s fairly well known but doesn’t hurt to make that explicit. (“You know, ’paradigm’ was a pretty good word in the English language until I got hold of it!!!!”—Thomas Kuhn). As such—as such—some things that are sometimes considered “paradigms” are actually not. “Tabula Rasa,” still listed on some JQPs as a “paradigm,” is not—it just “indicates what will get onto a judge’s flow” figuratively or literally speaking. Similarly, I’ve seen still listed on a JQP “recently” “Games Playing”—may do a good job of describing the activity as a whole, but, there is no way to use that to pick a winner or loser and/or make a decision whatever way one wants to say that!!! (Fairly easy to figure out why, if you think about it). So, again, circling back to where I started “way back when” :) --just debate a round in a/the paradigm into which it seems to be falling, the odds of a round becoming a truly apples and oranges issue is virtually nil as one side will almost certainly say something (even if they didn’t mean to!!!) that could subsume their arguments into the other side’s paradigm.

Now on to the elephant in the room. You could see this coming as some of the above cannot be fully unpacked without it (…some of the above, anyway!!!!!...)

Critical arguments/ Kritiks/critiques etc. Of course, could not not get to these !!!!!

Likely—or at least hopefully—one could see some points that I’d raised in the above sections as already starting to address some of this. Hopefully, if one understands these arguments, which anecdotally I have observed is …is …is --not all that common in the debate community

Truly this requires a book-length exposition, and this isn’t the right place for that. So, just a few “Generalities” here, “generalities” which would stand up to further scrutiny but which can’t be fully covered here:

--At their best, critiques/Ks/ critical arguments can be said to be “debate at its best, the true summit of this activity.” At their worst, they call into serious question whether this activity ought to be allowed to continue. The difference is that great; the facts of the matter have it where most of the time it’s the latter that occurs, not the former. Part of this is (probably) because…

--“Your idea is so far off that it is not even wrong!!!” Here that proverbial appellation is often apt. Every indication is that most debaters don’t understand these arguments, certainly these arguments properly understood. Many debaters (seem to) think that they do, but (again anecdotally, albeit a significant anecdotal amount thereof) from: the way(s) that these arguments are run in rounds; the places they are put into rounds and the ways that they get extended; after-round confabs that involve “Comments and RFD” discussions with debaters and coaches; plus “debate-tournament-situated” but non-directly round-related conversations with coaches, judges, and debaters –I get the very real—and very disconcerting—sense that most people in the debate community do not really have the most basic understanding of these types of arguments, properly understood. Not good, especially as this all has been perpetuated for a very long time…

--..a silver lining in this very dark cloud is that precisely because (most) debaters do not know (seem to not know) what they are talking about when it comes to critiques/Ks/ critical arguments, they “fail” (miserably!) in what they are attempting to do, fail so miserably that they sometimes (oftentimes!) collapse into other types of ("normal science") debate arguments, and, thus, can become issues in the round/voters in those ways, not in the ways that they were initially intended, but, still, “dysfunctionally” [in its literal meaning!] debatable in a given round. A "felix culpa" of sorts. Almost certainly not as effective as if the team had run other arguments instead of their pseudo-Ks!!!! Still, in a given round, they might (might!) “work,” inelegantly that that might be. So, my advice (and more on this in a second!!!) is, “Don’t run them, but if you do, just try to apply them to the arguments that’re in the round as it progresses and ‘monkey at a typewriter who knows some basic spelling and grammar rules of said-typewriter’s language’ you might crank out a meaningful argument or three.” (Again, more in a second here)

Affirmatives? Well, given the above, maybe this will make sense!!! “Critical cases?” “Sure!!!! As long as they’re topical!!!!!” (!!!????) “As long as what you’re saying can map on to the resolution in an affirmative sense,” I’m okay!!!!! [As part of what I was getting at earlier w.r.t. “understanding,” one of the ways to tell if someone understands something (as opposed to just “regurgitating” it) is “if they know it when they see it.” What I just said above is a perfect—THE perfect!!!- example of something in debate theory, it’d be a great test to use to see if people know what they’re talking about or just “parroting.”]

Given what I said above, I’ll say the following, and that serves as a good segue into my next (and final!!!!) major point here. Given what seems to be the case about critiques/Ks/critical arguments in the debate community, I believe that pedagogically “we”/the debate community ought to say/do two things with regard to them, with regard to the way it/”we” engage the students/competitors regarding them. (Well, okay, “Three” things, but the first one is “a priori” and that is “stop voting for them whenever possible and, most certainly, whether win or lose don’t give them 28.5 speaker points in those rounds!!!!”) One, I would say that if the debate community is going to continue to use these types of arguments and teach them to new and future debaters, it is requisite on the debate community to mention that “these ideas in the forms we are presenting them to you are ‘not correct,’ this is not really what So-and-So was really saying, the ways that these arguments get used in debate rounds are inappropriate 98 times out of 100, so before we go any further we need to add that in.” Tell the debaters that “what we are telling you sounds really cool and erudite and esoteric but it is not correct!!!! “ I believe that is requisite, and is probably (probably!!!) most important of all, but also I would add this one as well. Two, “Fun as they are, big-headed as you might get by sounding like you know something about these ideas, in almost all cases there are better arguments to run in given rounds, that most cases have non-critical arguments that are better than these (pseudo-) critical ones.” SO, even if these, by happy accident, somehow get “shoehorned” in, even if you can fit square pegs into round holes, you are better off trying other approaches, “Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments “ (“GOFDA “???) This then seems like a good place to segue into that. Now I'll get to my last and final major point (“and there was much rejoicing!!!”)...

“Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments” (“GOFDA”?) Hey, after all this, a long-overdue return to the point I made WAY above, namely, “normal science.” You know, there’s nothing wrong with actually discussing issues that pertain in some meaningful way to US arms sales abroad; to how those arms sales affect issues of war and peace / conflict and avoidance / population welfare or detriment; how we can engage in thought experiments and forecasts about how various proposals would/could/reasonably might affect those aforementioned matters; and “work” that it involves discussing all of the above using expert evidence and rational analysis. Wow, what a concept!!!!! Pardon the tone here and Yes most debaters are or can be “normal scientists” and maybe that gets boring, maybe you’d like to try other approaches just for kicks or maybe it’s just too much work, BUT, well, that’s what this activity does or can do “well” and there’s nothing wrong with that!!!! When done well, there is SO MUCH benefit to that that it’s hard to describe, explain. Don’t know if I even want to get started but various research that has indicated (old research!!! Not as sure this would hold true today!!!) that the knowledge and understanding of a topic that one gains from debating a HS policy debate topic for a season is roughly equivalent to writing a Master’s thesis on that topic (!!!!!!); that one can nerd out and watch a C-Span program with various past and present Undersecretaries of State or Defense or Ambassadors or Fellows at think tanks and sometimes see and hear that same level of analysis in a high school debate round (!!!!!)—what is wrong with that???!!???!!!!! So, if you are preparing arguments, I would say for any tournament but certainly for a season-ending one, but also certainly for me—“GOFDA”

Yes, each one of the above really needs book-length treatment, and maybe sometime I will give them that. For now, though, I believe I will just sign out

###