Guha-Majumdar,+Jishnu

5 years of Policy Debate, University of Texas – Austin Last Updated: November 2013
 * *LDers go to the bottom ***

** Short version: ** - Remember the big picture. Think of arguments holistically and pay attention to appropriate nexus issues. - Debating > Evidence, at the margins - but when in doubt defer to truthiness. - Evidence Quality > Quantity, almost always. - I am less likely to be persuaded by "cheap shots" without substantial development. - Internal links are more important than impacts. - Getting Speaker Points  - Be polite, nice, but sassy  - Use history, specificity, and topic knowledge  - I'll follow any tournament-provided rubric - Theory predispositions at the bottom. ** Long version: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">General guidelines for debating in front of me regardless of particular argument genres - <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __1. Strategy/Big Picture over Tech Minutiae (when it matters)__ : <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I rarely consider particular issues in isolation. Rather, I consider particular arguments in the context of the overall strategy offered in the final rebuttals. If one argument is answered by the overarching strategy of the other team, it’s not dropped if it wasn’t put on the right line of the flow <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- For you that means: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">- The way you frame your speeches, especially the final rebuttals, is important. I try to pay attention to what I perceive the round’s meta-issues are, or what I’m told they are. I reward debaters that are able to identify key nexus issues and exploit them. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Pay attention to interactions between arguments. Be able to leverage different parts of the debate against each other.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">__2. But tech still matters quite a bit.__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- “Tech” doesn’t necessarily mean flow-centrism or perfect line-by-line, but it does mean you must answer all important and relevant arguments regardless of argumentative style. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- It also means that arguments made in the debate round supercede what I believe to be the truth. However, when in doubt, defer to truthiness.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">__3. The simple fact of a claim's assertion does not make it true__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Arguments do not “count” unless they contain a claim, warrant, and an impact (impact as in, "why does this argument matter for the round”) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Dropped arguments are not points or auto-wins, they’re opportunities that need to be impacted. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Examples of statements that, in themselves, do not count as arguments: “Extend our X evidence, it’s really good” “They’ve conceded the uniqueness debate” <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Some arguments do not rise to the level of requiring an answer, beyond a thumbs down and a frowny face: 5 Second ASPEC Shells, RVIs, etc. get outta here.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">__4. Reading evidence__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- - Comparison of and debate over evidence is, when it matters, more important than quantity or mere existence of evidence -Quality and strategic value of evidence is almost always more important than quantity <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I try not to read more evidence than I have to. When I call for ev that means that I’m: Trying to break an argumentative tie, verifying truth claims made by the debaters, or getting cites.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __5. Speaking, Speaker Points, and Style__ (New - Pre-Wake 2013)

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I will follow any speaker point rubric provided by a tournament.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Otherwise, I'll admit that as a young judge my speaker point "scale" is still a bit in flux and subject to impulse. My points are generally relative to tournament difficulty - The same-quality performance will receive lower points at a more difficult tournament.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- In the absence of a rubric, a 28+ generally demonstrates basic/average technical competency, a 28.5-6 signifies a performance worthy of early outrounds, ~29 or above signifies a performance worthy of a speaker award. Bonus points for the stuff covered below.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Clarity over speed. Debate is foremost a persuasive, rhetorical activity, not a set of 1s and 0s. I may not get your 6 th UQ card; it may be my fault, or it may be because you were too unclear or fast. Err on the side of caution and be clear.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">-Topic Knowledge, Specificity, and History are Plusses. This applies equally to “policy", “critique", and "performance" teams. Specificity won’t necessarily affect how I judge the arguments, but demonstrate an impressive breadth and depth of topic knowledge tends to garner better points. Historicization is usually more important than reading an extra card.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">- Style. There is a fine line between being sassy and polite, and being rude and arrogant. That being said, I really like the former and really hate the latter. When in doubt, err towards being nice. Respect your opponent.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">__6. Random quirks__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Internal links matter more than terminal impacts. I care less about how many scenarios for extinction or root causes the K controls than I do about the ability of the alt to solve or the magnitude of your link.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Similarly, 5 blippy nuclear war scenarios and a litany of specious turns case arguments are less persuasive to me than one or two well supported ones. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"> - <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- “Role of the Ballot” // should // be an important argument but in most instances has become meaningless to me. I’m not a fan of LD value criterion style role of the ballot debating, where dropping the phrase “this is the role of the ballot” determines rounds. The framework for evaluating debates is important to me, but I don’t think about them in a vacuum. I.e. If a team reads and thoroughly extends “policy-wonkage good” evidence, I consider that an answer to “Your role is to be a critical intellectual.”

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __7. Theory/Procedural Predispositions__ – since the assumptions debates are often unsupported and come down to judge presumptions, I figure I should make mine clear. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">-Context and concreteness are important. I don't like thinking about theoretical concepts like limits and ground in the abstract. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Topicality. I think I tend to lean more towards reasonability than most judges, though not definitively so. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Impacts. Yes, I think debate is largely a game, but I think it’s too important to be considered JUST a game. That means, “fairness” impacts don’t mean a ton to me in a vacuum, I’m more interested in what kind of activity certain types of fairness can create. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I don’t kick out of CPs or Alts unless I’m instructed to. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- - I have a slight neg bias on conditionality, absent contradictions. The litmus test for a contradiction is whether something can be conceded. Conditionality applies to worlds, not to individual arguments. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I have a slight aff bias for the following arguments: 50 states, consult, conditions, most CPs that include the full text of the plan/compete through normal means.

=
============================================== 2015 Harvard Note: This year I have not worked much with LDers and this tournament is the first time I've judged LD since last year's TOC. That means I don't really know much about the nuances of the topic, so keep that in mind re: acronyms, terms of art, etc.
 * LD**

Although I primarily judge policy debate and competed in it for 5 years at the collegiate level, I did do LD for almost all of my high school career and I judge it occasionally. Most of the things in my policy paradigm above are still relevant to LD, as they relate to style and execution of argumentation rather than content. Here's the short version, look above for longer explanations: - Remember the big picture. Think of arguments holistically and pay attention to appropriate nexus issues. - Debating > Evidence, at the margins - but when in doubt defer to truthiness. - Evidence Quality > Quantity, almost always. - I am less likely to be persuaded by "cheap shots" without substantial development. - Internal links are more important than impacts. - Getting Speaker Points - Be polite, nice, but sassy - Use history, specificity, and topic knowledge - I'll follow any tournament-provided rubric

I try to decide based on what I percieve LD norms to be. That being said, here is what my policy background does and does not mean for you: - __Speed__ - In tandem with clarity, speed is not an issue. That caveat is important, though. In policy, high speed is made easier by tag/card structure. Its important to be clear and slow down through extended analytic/philosophic explanation. I will say clear a couple of times and stare unhappily after that.

- __Warrants__ - I find that I often have slightly higher thresholds for what counts as an argument. This is explained above in number 3 from my policy paradigm.

- __Theory__ - I by no means care whether you read theory or not, but empirically I have found a lot of LD Theory arguments to be a bit contrived. E.g. in policy debate RVIs do not have any cache. With me you'll probably need to spend less time justify fairness and education as voters than you do winning the internal story of the violation.

- __Policy Arguments__ - Actually don't have a preference on whether you read them. In fact, one of the things I value about LD is the ability to deploy thought experiments and analytic philosophical arguments, since these are rarer in policy. I obviously feel competent policy arguments, but that also means I'm more likely than other judges to know when you're doin' it wrong.

- __Shorthand__ - I don't know some of it. I just learned what "skep" referred to from my debaters (though i'm familiar with the philosophical arg it refers to). I don't know what things like "AFC" mean.