Please add me to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com. I do not forward email chains from rounds I've judged (Is this a new thing? I never saw it in my day debating until like 2 months ago). 1. I don't generally keep chains after the round so I couldn't even if I wanted to and 2. I don't think it's my place to be sending other people's evidence to third parties without their knowledge or consent.

Affiliations and Qualifications:

Iowa City West High, Policy Debate, 2011-2017, 2023-, (Debating [til 2014], Coaching and Judging);

Hawken (Policy Debate and Congressional Debate, 2021-22, Judging);

A meme I made in 2012 was the cover photo for the High School Policy Debate Facebook page for like ~3-4 years.

I'm a lawyer in Iowa and also admitted (inactive status) in Ohio. To explain how I evaluate some arguments, check out this article about standards of proof in the legal context. Each section will have an analogous standard of proof for how likely I am to pull a trigger on a specific argument.

Policy

Feel free to ask any outstanding questions before the round. I debated in high school for 3 years and then judged in college for 2 years before I started judging again in law school. I've been involved with the activity for a decade but on and off so while I've picked up on some new community norms and trends, I might not be up on every one. In high school, I was incredibly policy oriented as West High wasn't a "K" team, though I dabbled a bit.

Specifics:

DAs/CPs (Preponderance of the Evidence):

I don't have any specific hang ups on DAs. Mostly the same for CPs, but please don't spread your plan text at me (CP text should also be in the speech doc). Especially if you're reading more than one. Consult and delay CPs have been on thin ice in terms of legitimacy since 2013 and I don't think that's changed. Process CPs are on slightly more stable ground, especially if you have a specific solvency advocate. I will not default to judge kick and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me to do judge kick. If you went for the CP, you're stuck with it. I'm not going to decide your "real" 2NR strategy for you. If this

T (Clear and Convincing):

I tend towards reasonability because I think CI trends towards a race to the bottom to find a technically excluding but overall terrible definition but I will use a different framework if you ask me and (obviously) win why that framework is better. Potential abuse is a voter but actual abuse is a stronger VI. Fairness is an impact and an internal link, I don't know where this trend away from fairness as an impact came from.

Kritik and K Affs (Clear and Convincing):

I may be a product of early 2010's Iowa debate I am not anti-K. I've voted on some weird ones before. That being said, I haven't even started to read a lot of the literature so err on the side of over-explaining rather than under-explaining. Being 100% honest, the K's that have the most familiarity with are K's like Cap, Security, and some anarchist literature (Virillio is probably the most "out there" K I am familiar with and that's only because of the transportation topic). If your K/K Aff is named after a or there's like one key author for your K, I guarantee I am not familiar with that lit. If that is your kind of K, you either should not pref me or do a comically large amount of explanation for the terms your using. If you don't do this explanation, I will try my best but I only have a limited amount of time to read cards and make my decision. If you're a k aff team that somehow got stuck with me as a judge after reading that paragraph, I'm sorry. I'm crying too.

For policy aff v k rounds, I will generally default to weighing the aff against the alt. Any other framework/role of the ballot arguments seem to boil down to "The role of the ballot is to vote neg" which seems arbitrary and isn't super convincing in a vacuum. However, you can read a different framework and I'll evaluate that argument.

Also this may be a new development in debate but I do not get the argument that "fairness is not an impact". If you want more extrapolation on why fairness is an impact, David Heidt's paradigm gives a far more eloquent explanation of fairness as an impact than I could type here.

Theory (Clear and convincing):

Condo becomes bad somewhere after 3 advocacies. Probably okay with one (1) CP and one (1) K. International Fiat is also bad, though I don't think that's relevant for this topic. 50 States Fiat is on thin-ish ice, fiating the NGA is on thinner ice. Speed bad (for reasons other than ableism) or "You can't tell jokes in a debate round" (real arguments from the same round I judged) are on the thinnest ice. I don't love resolving theory debates but I will definitely vote on it if enough time is dedicated to it. I have a highish bar for voting on theory. If you're going for reject the team, it should be like at least 40% of your last speech. If you're going for reject the argument, there should be at least a substantial time dedication on the respective flow. Please don't spread your blocks at me. Theory debates should not be at full speed.

ASPEC (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt):

Yes, this has its own heading. Please don't. I have never seen someone unironically, actually, wholeheartedly go for ASPEC. Save time and just don't. The aff is allowed to spend 10% of the time you spent reading ASPEC to respond to ASPEC.

Speed:

I am "fine with speed" however this comes with caveats. You should have three speeds. From fastest to slowest: Text, Tag, and Theory (and perms/plan texts). If you decide to do theory at card text speed, I will 100% miss something and you likely won't love my RFD. K debates should also be slower. It is hard to flow paragraph length tags at full speed. I barely understand a majority of philosophy at a conversational pace, I will not understand it better at 350 wpm.

Odds & Ends:

1. Tech over truth but that doesn't mean the truth is irrelevant. (i.e. "No" is a complete and probably winning answer to arguments like "warming not real" or "federalism solves electricity grid security." [this backfired a bit. You still have to actually give an argument with warrants. The phrasing of this was for rhetorical effect]).

2. I feel like a well-crafted and to the point overview was an underutilized tool in my day and since I've been back judging. Don't cut your line-by-line for to do an overview but contextualization of your L-by-L is incredibly useful especially with my limited knowledge of the topic or your K.

3. I am not a huge fan of 5+ off strategies. I get their usefulness but they usually lead to late breaking and sub-par debates. I'm not going to take points off or anything if you go 6 off but I personally believe the debate will be better with fewer positions. THIS IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE JUST A PREFERENCE/OBSERVATION ABOUT DEBATE. TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THEORY ARGUMENT WILL NOT WORK.

4. Is a 28.5 still a pretty good score or is that the new 27.5? Have we moved entirely out of 27? If point inflation really is that bad, I apologize if I'm still in a 2014 mindset. I was by no means stingy with points back in the day (I probably averaged somewhere around like 28.2-4) but heck if I know what stingy even is these days. Back in the day, I had a point floor somewhere around 27.5 and a ceiling somewhere around 29.7. These weren't hard lines though.

5. Don't read too much into how long it takes me to decide. I've judged debates that were incredibly close but decided immediately and lopsided debates that took 10 minutes to formulate an RFD.

6. If you start the evidence comparison or impact calc in the 2xR, don't get mad at me when that debate isn't fully fleshed out and I have to do some amount of intervention. I try to take the path of least resistance to my decisions and limit any intervention or bias but sometimes that's easier said than done.

7. Somewhat along the same lines as #6, I generally won't read evidence sua sponte. I generally read evidence in one of three scenarios, I can't resolve the debate otherwise, you explicitly tell me too, and/or something about your evidence piques my interest (i.e. I know it makes a claim that is interesting, objectively untrue, and/or you very clearly power tagged a card. These generally won't affect the outcome of the debate unless it's critical or I have to resolve that specific question and it's necessary).

Congress (old, mostly irrelevant):

Apparently I judge Congress now. If you're here because you're a congressional debater, you can ignore the above. Coming from a policy debate background I really like good and effective argumentation. However, I realize that the constraints of the Congressional Debate format can put up barriers to that. Recognizing that I try to weigh speaking skills along with argumentation skills somewhat equally but, good argumentation can help a speech with speaking issues while good speaking skills can't save a speech with flawed argumentation.

Debate is a community, and I expect debaters to be cordial and polite to one another in round.

Debate is an activity based on persuasion, logic, and clear communication. As such, I am open to all hearing all forms of arguments in a debate, but arguments promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will not do well on my ballot. Debate in the style you prefer and with the best strategy—over-adapting to judge preferences usually ends poorly.

I am a flow judge that prefers line-by-line argumentation. But if you do not go line-by-line, signposting is essential. Use language within the cases to signpost where you are in the flow.

Arguments:

Arguments should be well-researched and supported through logical links and evidence. Arguments that have the most weight in the round are the ones that have a clear claim, warrant, impact and data. Link stories are important and should be clearly identified.

Focus on impacts. Terminal impacts are important and get most of the focus, but low scale impacts are important too. Impact calc provides justification for why your arguments are important and outweigh your opponents. If you want to prove that your side is net beneficial, engage in comparable impac calc throughout the round and especially in your voters.

Arguments do not always have to have evidence, but the highest quality arguments usually have evidence. If you have evidence, but no analytical extension it defeats the purpose. Having too many cards is better than no cards. If you fabricate evidence, it is an ethical issue and voting issue on my ballot.

If an argument is dropped explain why that should impact my ballot. I’ll flow it through.

Clash:

Provide interpretations and counter interpretations. If you do not counter the interpretation provided, it is assumed you agree.

Clash with the opponent’s case and evidence is essential. Provide clash on the framework at the top of the flow and throughout the opponent’s case. It is a great strategy to counter the interpretation of the opponent’s evidence/card and explain why it is misinterpreted or turn it to your side.

Extend and cross-apply arguments. Go line by line and explain the clash and why your side is winning. Avoid shallow rebuttals.

Speed:

I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear. If you go too fast and do not clearly tag arguments making it difficult to follow your speech, I will not put it on the flow. Speed is only effective if it is also clear (enunciate, signpost, etc.). This is a dialogic activity and a solid debate is only as good as the clarity of the arguments presented.

Updated 2/7/24

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail

Background:

Ames High School (’14)-qualified to the TOC and then-NFL Nationals

University of Iowa (’17)-Dr. Dave once called my extension of topicality “lucid and succinct”

Wake Forest University ('20)-M.A. in Communication

Currently Communications Faculty at the University of Saint Mary.

Genealogy:

I've spent over a decade (yikes) in this activity as either a debater, judge, or coach. Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Brooke Kimbrough, Jason Regnier.

Overview:

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. While in my day "job" I work mostly as a quantitative social scientist, I still enjoy reading philosophy pieces, including those more critical in nature. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for Afropessimism compared to those focused on embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to err aff on counterplan theory PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. Like all judges I do think demonstrating actual impacts to debatability are good and well but am quite fine with the point that words mean things.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day. Note: in the years since I first put this in my paradigm I have continued to hear and vote off of this line of argument. So it certainly is viable in front of me-though I don't like it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Public Forum:

You will find I have high expectations for evidence quality and am quite flow-oriented. Doing well in front of me in PF involves:

-directly answering your opponent's arguments. Directly refute what they said. I'm not going to spot you a link

-explicit impact calculus

-being attuned to the flow

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.

In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!

Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.

If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.

Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.

I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.

If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.