Wake Forest 2014-2018

Email: nedgidley@gmail.com

Texas 2023 Update

Hello! I’m excited to be back judging after a brief hiatus. I had a bad hand injury earlier this fall; two bigger implications of this:
1. Extremely limited topic knowledge—I have not judged on the topic.
2. Flowing somehow even worse—I’m still adjusting to writing/typing with my right hand so I will be needing extra time to flow.

Pre-Northwestern 2021 Update (too many updates, need to clean up this mess)

Topic seems big and complex. I don't know very much so I would err on the side of explaining extra.

ADA/NDT/CEDA Update 2021

Top level--make choices. Prioritize arguments and explain why they matter. Reading comments like this is annoying but I have judged both policy and clash debates where both sides played a game of chicken except neither side caved so the judges just had to evaluate a bunch with almost no comparison, weighing, or calculus. This important for rebuttals but can start early: does the 1nc really need ConCon with 8 words highlighted? Does the aff need 3 advantages? You could extend both DAs quickly in the block or pick one and win it. Also I like a good case debate (realize harder with teams breaking new stuff).

Online debate--[grumpy flow rant]--I know everyone says slow down but easier said when you aren't the one giving a speech that has to respond to a lot. With that said, I do feel that in almost every debate it would be beneficial if people slowed down on analytics/tags. I think I do flow slower than others, but a benefit of online debate is being able to follow ev on my 2nd monitor. It's the non-card parts of the speech that cause problems. Some send no analytics, which would be fine except very quick perms/counter-interps. Others send the analytics and then just blaze through them because they are in the doc. Even if you slow down a tad saying these and give a tiny bit of pen time, it is very helpful (and adds very little time to the speech).

Cards--I really do like them regardless if it is a DA debate, clash debate, T debate etc. I want to reward qualified and specific evidence. But please don't answer a CX question about a warrant with "we have ev."

Time--would love to minimize the time that is neither speeches nor prep time. I really do like to spend the time to look over my flows thoroughly and read over cards. A lot of my decisions take right up till the end and I appreciate having more time (rather than less).

For Northwestern ‘20/Alliances

I did a tiny bit of executive and space work but did not judge any debates so I’m catching up on the debate meta. I have done some research for alliances.

I’m interested to see how much affs do on this topic. I think that consensus will settle somewhere between a pole on one side of affs blowing up alliances (Bandow’s dream) and tiny affs that tinker on the other pole but we will see. Trump seems to loom over.

Online Debate

Slowing down a bit and being clearer helps. Cross-ex is trickier: 4 people talking at the same time was not great with everyone in the same room but I think it’s even worse over Zoom(or comparable video debate platform).

Prefs/Top Level Stuff

Tech or truth?

Lean tech: if I flow a claim, warrant, and impact for an argument you should answer it. Like most judges, I have a somewhat arbitrary gut check for an argument that’s too absurd to vote on even if dropped; but it’s better to answer an arg that to bank on me to find something absurd.

Policy or K?

I made policy arguments as a debater. I lean policy on most arguments in a given clash debate; if I were a debater with an affinity for critical arguments I would not pref a judge like myself highly. But given the tech note above, policy debaters should be wary of just saying “fairness” and dropping every critical argument.

Cards

Love ‘em. I like when these are read. If you can explain why I should prefer your cards on important issues (nuanced warrants, they assume the other side’s best arg, qualifications, etc.) that goes a long way. Demonstrating that you worked hard to assemble the evidence you have and to come up with the strategy you went for is something I want to reward.

More Specific Things

Debating the Case

Love the case debate. A lot of judge philosophies have phrases along the lines of “lost art” in their judge philosophies and I will say I like a good case debate. This goes for a policy or if people are feeling bold critical affirmative. If you want to go for a case turn in the 2NR, I think you need some extra calculus and “even ifs”/tie-breakers in the 2NR. For link turns, I think normally this would be a timeframe argument or maybe a structural reason why you control the impact. For impact turns, normally this is some external offense and then mitigation of the original impact (could be an inevitability debate with a “now key/the sooner the better” warrant or a reason why you internal link turn the worst part of their scenario). Numbering args isn’t always possible but when the 1NC can introduce this (and the order doesn’t get jumbled in the debate) it is a thing of beauty.

Topicality

T cards aren’t the most exciting to cut but they win debates (for both sides). Defining words is important including counterinterpretations. You should meet your counterinterpretation.

Not of a fan of what Bricker calls “planicality”—word salad plantexts written around topic words to make winning a clear violation tough. I think in a lot of these cases, it might just be better for the neg to punish the aff for not having an advocate for anything close to the plantext and using that for CPs (explained below). Related to this, I think plantext in a vacuum is a phrase that gets thrown around with little to no explanation. If you can explain the relationship between mandates and affects in order to frame how I should view T vs. solvency than I am more likely to be persuaded by it.

Counterplans

I think generally I would describe myself as neg leaning but aff sympathetic. Arguments about fairness are important, but I think the literature surrounding an advocacy really shapes of lot for me. I have a hard time telling the negative why they should be required to have a strict advocate for the counterplan if the aff has a plantext that is not supported by a similar advocate.

PICs—like them. Especially if something is specified or in the plantext/advocacy statement.

Summers 94 CPs (counterplans that rely on should/resolved to be immediate/certain)—harder to win for the neg. Good evidence plus a set-up in cross-ex or a cross-application or a theory argument somewhere else can help.

DAs

It’s important for both sides to relate the aff offense and the DA and weigh them. Turns case/DA is important but I prefer a more direct route: e.g. “the link turns advantage 2…” or “the aff solves prolif” rather than “warming turns prolif” (more indirect). Cards also helpful there.

The link is important; otherwise the DA is irrelevant to the aff. On alliances, I think the neg needs to be weary of reading the link booster cards like “smaller shifts matter” or “any perception” because I think that jeopardizes many (of what I assume will be) UQ stories of “Trump rhetoric doesn’t matter; treaty obligations haven’t changed” if the link isn’t about changing the treaty/agreement.

Clash debates

Really don’t like a long 2NC overview (on framework vs a K aff or on the K vs a policy aff) and then tons of the line by line is just “that was above.” I am sure you have spent time coming up with the correct phrasing for your blocks but if you even just move that explanation to the correct part of the debate, it really helps the flow.

I mentioned above that I love hard work and specific strategies. The more recycled a speech feels, the less likely I am to vote for it. I also like cards. Strategies without cards are not great in front of me. These debates normally have a lot of layers (framework, perms, impacts etc.). That makes this debates difficult (and muddled) because you have to both “win” a lot of important arguments and also explain how those implicate the rest of the debate. A good formula I was told for this was “our link is X, our impact is y, we solve with the alt b/c z, even if they win [their best argument] we still win.”

Other Stuff

Don’t be Terrible

While this applies to blatant behaviors like racism or card clipping, it also applies to just interacting with others generally. We are a set of nerds who get together on weekends to read words off of our laptops quickly. Going hard against your opponent’s argument does not require you to go hard against your opponent. Lying (misdisclosing, misleading, misrepresenting, clipping etc.) is detrimental to fun debates.

Things Outside of the Round

Harder to adjudicate on these. I also haven’t been at tournaments the last two years so I’m sure I’ve missed some community developments.

Reciting This Philosophy in Round

Does anyone like this? I’m sure there are silly things I’ve typed here (maybe a typo); please don’t. I haven’t heard an RFD that went along the lines of “I really loved how you kept calling me by my first name. Then you also told me about what I had written on T in my judge philosophy so I couldn’t vote you down.”

Inserting Rehighlights

Seems to be contentious. I would say I don’t care if you read or insert it but whenever you do so it’s important to explain what you are revealing and why that matters. Normally, I think these are best for contextualization. If you rehighlight paragraphs of text or read aloud every word the other side didn’t read then the gist of it is “see their card says other words” which isn’t very helpful.

Have fun!

Coached:

2023-2024---Shawnee Mission East (Fiscal Redistribution)

2024-Present---The Pembroke Hill School (IP)

Debated:

2019-2023---Truman High School (Arms Sales, CJR, Water, NATO)

2023-Present---University of Kansas (Nukes, Environment)

Background Information

He/They

Please call me Owen. Not judge.

I would like to be on the chain but will not read evidence during speeches. My email is owenwilliamsdebate@gmail.com

Pro-scrappy debate. Pro-small schools killing it.

I was taught debate by Parker Hopkins. My debate opinions have been heavily influenced by Maddie Pieropan, especially in the domain of critical arguments and framework.

T/L

Tech + truth > tech > truth

Clarity + speed > clarity > speed

You should make any argument as long as it's not something problematic. I'm very much in the camp that the judge should do 99% of the adaptation and that the debaters should do their thing. The only exception is that I would prefer not to adjudicate a death good debate.

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. If you pull up to the round and request for/require it to be closed your speaks will be tanked. Stop evading clash.

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

^+.1 speaker points to the 1A if you send the 1AC before I'm in the room/zoom

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-----------X--------------------K

Tech---X----------------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes--------------------X-----------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability-----------------------------X--Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-------------------------X-----You might just be a bad person

Case

In-depth case debating is a lost art. Revive this art and your speaks and decision will most likely reflect such.

Impact turn debates are my favorite debates to judge.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does. Defer to solvency advocates, 1ACs should have an advocate that says exactly what the plan does.

K AFFs/Framework

I've been on both sides of these debates and I don't think that I lean particularly far to one side.

Procedural fairness is an impact, but not in the way that teams are increasingly explaining it. If the fairness arguments that you're making are just a workaround to get to the clash impact, you should be going for clash in front of me. Buzz phrases such as "debate is a game" or "T is a-priori" to answer substantive framework arguments are not responsive and will earn you low speaks.

Affirmatives need a clear and obvious theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made-up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes. I'm going to have a high threshold for 2AC/1AR/2AR consistency.

I agree with Maddie Pieropan here - "Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all critical AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained."

I don't think teams should be reading planless AFFs in the novice division.

T/Theory v Policy

If you're reading a plan it should be a topical one. I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability.

Precision + predictability > debateability

I truly believe that conditionality is good but contradicting advocacies are bad. Punish those teams by going for condo.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness."

Extra-resolutional procedures are often frivolous and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

CP

1ACs should be built to beat the 5-10 most common CPs on the topic.

Conditionality is good, contradicting advocacies are bad. PICs are good and are one of the most competitive forms of counterplans. AFFs should have to defend the entirety of the AFF.

I lean NEG on: Condo, PICs, ADV CPs, agent CPs, 50 state fiat, condition CPs

I lean AFF on: Consult CPs, International CPs, multi-actor CPs

PICs out of substance are good, word PICs are probably bad.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Non-condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument instead of the team. Unless there is a warranted reason to reject the team in the 2AC or a cross-application to a different flow, I will often let NEGs get away with nothing more than "reason to reject the argument, not the team.

DA

Specific links > generics. This should be pretty obvious.

Link turns case arguments are good. Like very very good.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2NR.

K

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

Framework debate matters more to me than most. I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I think most neg framework interps and ROBs are self-serving and probably detrimental to debate. " I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action. In the 2NR I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or the links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense.

Life has value.

If you read a K that you are not well-versed in it will be incredibly obvious. This is going to make the debate hell for everyone involved and tank your speaks.

How to get good speaks:

Being kind and inclusive to everyone in the round

Clarity

Smart concessions

Sending analytics

Going for the impact turn

How to get bad speaks:

Stealing prep

Being rude

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when less than three cards were marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take prep for it.

Refusing disclosure

Trying to shake hands with me (?) weird thing to do

How to get 0 speaks + L:

Any form of bigotry including but not limited to: homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism

Clipping: I will not be reading evidence during the speech. The opposing team will need a video recording of the clipping and will need to stake the round on the violation