Jeffrey Bile, Professor Emeritus Spalding University, PhD Rhetoric and Public Culture

Previously judged and coached debate at WVU, Ohio U, Akron, EIU, SIU, Utah, and for several high school programs

First, let's avoid sticker shock. I’m old. I’ve judged tournament debates in six decades. In college, I judged deep elims at NDT-CEDA-NFA-NPDA national tournaments. My teams exceeded expectations in all of those formats-and I coached CEDA national champions--but that was a long time ago.

I'd be a little careful about jargon and especially the valence you assume attaches to some god/devil terms in tournament debate (e.g., conditionality, dispositional, floating pic, perm, etc.) or the dominant culture (e.g., growth). It's debatable. The culture of debate has evolved a lot since 1971, but the distinction between better and worse argument has had a home in all those decades and in all of the “debate cultures” that I know (policy and non-policy, high school and college, 2-person and LD, off-topic and on, curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular). It all comes back to argument in my experience.

I am not currently coaching. I judged a lot of rounds in NE Ohio in 2023-24 (Policy, LD, PF). I judged PF at TOC in 2023. I was last very actively involved in debate on the 2015 Oceans policy topic (CX). On that topic, I worked with our debaters on ecological exploration and dolphin communication affirmatives and negative positions on a space exploration tradeoff and critiquing frontierism-discovery ideologies and anthropocentric worldviews.

This may give you a good sense of the genres of arguments that I am especially attuned to. It seems hard for me to "get" unidirectional risk "death penalty" procedurals. But I LOVE good, smart theory debate about who "owns" certain first links in arguments (affirming/negating). I also love good debate about last impact (is economic growth good?). First cause and last effect debates that most often need to happen in the rounds I judge often don't as academic debaters far too often become victimized by the same obsessions as the dominant culture and its clearly staked out assumptions. Academic debaters are allowed to find those debatable.

---

My first priority as judge is to respect the conditionality of my invitation. I will not want to behave inconsistently with any formal rule of this tournament, and I give some presumption to what can be most immediately inferred from those. Cultures, on the other hand, evolve. I give little heed to norm and “unwritten rules” -- those are always in flux. Argument makes them that way. As an argumentation educator and cultural citizen, I do have preferences about the direction of debate culture evolution. These manifest as assumptions/presumptions (there is some burden of proof in overcoming them). In order . . .

Until explicitly argued otherwise . . .

(1) There is an enormous presumption in favor of formal rules (time limits, topic, etc.). It is hard to imagine an argument that would overcome their priority. [Please explicate them as formal rules if your argument is premised on them]

(2) We were invited to a debate ABOUT something. Not to general disagreement in the abstract but only to a formally focused competition to which we have agreed to associate ourselves. I assume that the announced proposition is what we were invited to a debate ABOUT. I assume that the affirmative is tasked with affirming, and the negative with negating that proposition.

(3) Debate is a contest in collaborative argumentation. [see below*]

(4) I give substantial presumption to arguments that seem to be accepted by the other team.

(5) I do not assume that talking, ethos, pathos, persuasion, or performance are ends in themselves . . . but, at best, means to the ends of comprehensive debate (engaged rule-bound arguments of affirmation/negation).

(6) Outside of those required by #1, and perhaps in part #2, I don’t know a sufficient reason to privilege either side regarding rights and responsibilities. I presume bi-laterality of affirmative/negative procedural burdens/presumptions and equal access to argument. This seems simple enough, but I encourage you to think through some of the implications before planning your strategy (e.g., you need some offense to win). I don't presume change per se is worse that the status quo.

(7) I also assume that the weight I should accord to an argument in my decision is roughly assessed by multiplying outcome x probability. I want you to explicitly debate the relative importance (i.e., outcome, impact) of arguments (e.g., through criteria, decision rules, impact analysis, etc.) and find such weighing to be far more important than debaters generally realize. I don't mean that I want you to take time out from the flow for a new overview on "weighing" in rebuttals-- I mean I want you to construct complete relevant arguments (including impact), from the first constructive. I want you to extend the arguments you want, with impact. I want to know why you think the words that are coming out of your mouth matter in their real-time debated context.

(8) I try to flow. I don't listen as fast as I did when I was in better practice. This is not an aesthetic or educational preemption--just a disclosure that time has had effects. There are a lot of things I don't do as well as I used to--however hard I try. I flow arguments not words. I flow the anatomy of your argument not the wording of the evidence. What matters first is the relevance you are inferring from the evidence and the argument that constructs. If you are not crystal clear in communicating the anatomy of the argument you are constructing, in constructives, it doesn’t matter how slow you deliver your words. Construct in constructive speeches--rather than in rebuttal "weighing" overviews or other late, out-of-the-flow of debate, interruptions. And I definitely won't be using your written materials post-debate to construct your argument for you--only to resolve an extended claim contesting the content of a quotation or to clarify language for ballot. Construct arguments, in constuctives.

You will probably be able to tell from my non-verbal expressions if I have stopped flowing—which I may do if I have lost the structure of your argument or its place on the flow that you are intending it to be applied. I may try to flow even if I’m pretty lost so it is good practice to be redundant in reinforcing/signposting your argument’s anatomy so that I will have a better flow. If you don’t want me to flow some or all of the debate, make that argument.

(9) Of course, it is pretty much all debatable. Absent successful argument, I will default to these assumptions. I think these are pretty much in order, from strong presumption / burden of proof for #1 (hard to imagine me changing my mind) to weak presumption at #7 and 8 (all you need is an argument).

* On Argument

• If debate is a contest in argumentation, then the arguments are important. I privileged process over product models of argument, preferring dialectical processes that are as collaborative, comprehensive and critical as circumstances permit.
• At the product level, the best arguments are invitations to intellectual empathy since they share good reasons to believe what you are asserting. Better argument products have better reasons, more reasons, better support for those reasons, or are more substantively important.
• Evidence is support for your argument—it may ground a reason for affirming/negative—it is not itself the argument. What are you inferring from the evidence? Why is that relevant? What is your argument?

Something else? Just ask!

Congratulations and good luck. I hope everyone debates their best and has fun (in my experience, these usually go hand-in-hand).

Tabula Rasa

You can e-mail me at kimbrell@cbhs.edu.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. My current teams are mostly policy style debates which aligns with the regions in which we compete. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY:I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK:Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.