Judge Philosophy for Policy Debate

As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on clarity, depth of analysis, and strategic decision-making. I believe that debaters should engage in rigorous research, thoughtful argumentation, and respectful dialogue.

Argument Evaluation: I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. I prefer debaters to focus on a few key arguments and develop them thoroughly rather than spreading themselves thin with numerous, underdeveloped points.

Research: I expect debaters to conduct thorough research to support their arguments. I appreciate evidence that is relevant, recent, and from reliable sources.

Clarity and Organization: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should structure their arguments logically, signpost effectively, and use understandable language.

Cross-Examination: I believe cross-examination is an important component of debate. I value respectful debaters who ask insightful questions and respond thoughtfully to their opponents.

Flexibility: While I believe that debaters should stick to their main arguments, I also appreciate adaptability. Debaters should be willing to adjust their strategies based on their opponents' arguments and the flow of the debate.

Fairness and Respect: I expect debaters to treat each other with respect and adhere to the rules of fair play. Ad hominem attacks, disrespectful behavior, and unethical tactics are not acceptable.

Decision-Making: In my decision-making process, I prioritize the strength of the arguments presented in the round. I consider the quality of evidence, logical reasoning, and strategic execution.

Role of the Ballot: I see the role of the judge as determining which team presented the most compelling arguments and analysis in the round. My ballot reflects my assessment of which team did the best job of fulfilling this criterion.

Overall, I aim to be a fair and impartial judge who rewards strong argumentation and strategic thinking. I look forward to judging your debates and providing constructive feedback

Greetings,

I am a fairly newish judge outside of Nashville. I entered the policy debate community in 2018, as the head debate coach for Hunters Lane High School in Nashville, Tennessee, a position that I still hold. I am also the Diocesan Director for the restarted Nashville Diocese of the National Catholic Forensic League. At this time, I have judged a few rounds officially but watched and flowed a great deal but nearly exclusively in Nashville.

Add me to your e-mail chain: Jason.Proffitt@mnps.org

Here Is What Is Worth Knowing about How I Judge:

Style: I'm probably a mash of policy/legislative framework, but I also believe that this is a game with rules. I believe that the aff must solve and the neg must compete and clash. I also believe this is all up for debate to anyone who can convince me otherwise. I want the rebuttals to argue to me how I should judge the debate and to explain the clash between the points and defend their framing.

Speed: I'm not the fastest flower, but if you give me a speech doc I'll work with your spreading. However, as almost any judge will tell you, clarity >>>>>> speed. If you can't be clear on your intentions, do not expect me to clean it up for you.

Helpfulness: If you want to know something, ask before the round; I try to be as open-book as possible. I want a good debate and will do everything in my power to enable debaters to enjoy a round within the rules.

K's: I don't love them, don't hate them. I care more about what you can do with one than that you have one. If you don't understand your K, don't expect me to be impressed by it. I do think that if you introduce alt-theory into debate then naturally you have a certain education burden that you need to prove, but that is true for any position of significance.

I'm willing to vote on CP, Theory, T, or against any of those things if you can frame it and weigh it. Prove it to me and educate me on it.

Congeniality: Be respectful to your opponent and judge, and let's enjoy the round. I will be respectful to you regardless of your preferences or experience. If I'm not looking at you often, it is because I focus on my flow and notes more than the actual speaker. I want to value the actual debate/evidence that you are presenting. I want you to feel welcome when I am judging you whatever your debate background and that you will get a fair hearing from me, and you can be assured that I work hard to make sure that you do. And yes, fair disclosure is part of congeniality.

Miscellaney: I care more about your utilization of evidence, clash, and comparison than your poise or wit. If I'm not looking at you, I'm probably flowing intensely and listening. I spend very little time watching the debaters; I prefer listening and note-taking/flowing as this gives clarity and removes bias.

For Novice Competitors:

-I allow open cross in novice rounds by default unless a tournament has different rules. In varsity, I tend to disallow unless there is a complicating factor (it is not a strong preference of mine). In middle divisions, I defer to the requests of teams, generally favoring when there is a hybrid team but giving a veto if there is a maverick.

--If you are new to debate as a participant or a coach, welcome! I am here to help!

--Novice debaters: Signposting is always appreciated!

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is a significant difference between the two interpretations.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.