Butler,+Judy

Eric Short (updated June 2013)

 University of Minnesota, Wayzata High School

 9 Years Coaching College, 12 Years Coaching High School I’m updating this philosophy not because of a change in how I view debates, but based on others’ reactions to how I judge debates. After the final round of the 2013 NDT, some people were “shocked” to find out I had “lost my critical edge.” I don’t think I have. Some questioned whether or not I was a “safe” judge for them, given I was no longer “on the fence” about where I fell on the judging spectrum. I take offense (a-fence) to that! Judging (mostly) clash-of-civilizations debates requires flexibility, but no matter the artificial constraints of policy v kritiks, it all boils down to winning link and impact arguments. Even others suggest I “pick a side” to get out of judging the dreaded clash-of-civilizations debates. Although tempting, I think debate is a great way for students to interact with a wide range of arguments, and that all those exchanges are important. Bad puns aside, I think (inasmuch as is possible) I am the same judge I have been since the previous update to this philosophy was written.

 I judge debates in the way they are presented to me. This means you control the substance of the debate, not me. As such, anything is open for debate; the team that will win is the team that is best able to explain why their arguments are better than the other teams. Impact analysis is extremely important at the end of the debate. You probably won’t like the decision if I decide what is most important. What follows are my predispositions about certain debate arguments. These are not necessarily truths, but if equally strong arguments are presented on both sides, I often default to the following beliefs. :

 Topicality—is an evidentiary issue about competing interpretations. Each side needs to explain the arguments their interpretation allows (or does not allow) and how that interpretation affects strategy questions in debate. Neither side has an inherent right to any particular argument—you need to resolve the questions of why and how your opponents’ strategy implicates yours. That being said, reasonability can be a persuasive argument IF debated as a question of a reasonable interpretation instead of as a question of a reasonable Aff. The latter often begs the question of what makes the Aff reasonable in the first place. T is a voting issue, and never an RVI. I think most critiques of topicality are debated at such a shallow level (you said T so you should lose) that they often function on the level of RVI (which is not a good level to be on). Throw-aways and T’s designed to arbitrarily exclude the Aff are a waste of good 1NC time.  Theory—cheap shots are NOT an easy way to win my ballot. Conditionality is fine, although multiple __contradictory__ positions can get you in to trouble. PICs are fine, but CPs that PIC out of something not in the plan text (consult, conditioning, etc) are probably cheating. Keep in mind, Negs often win that their CP is theoretically legitimate not because it is, but because the Aff usually just gives in. As with topicality, I think these theoretical issues are best resolved by evidence—if you have the cards to justify your CP, you are probably in a good place. If you want me to consider the status quo as an option, you should tell me in the 2NR: I will not default for you. Outside of conditionality, I default to rejecting the argument, not the team unless instructed otherwise.  DA’s—I prefer case specific DA’s to generic ones, but all generic DA’s can (and should) be made specific to each case. I think too often Aff’s give too much credence to 3 card 1NC’s without questioning the uniqueness of the impact, the internal link to the impact, etc. My subscription to the cult of uniqueness has expired, and I have yet to renew it.

 Critiques—I am familiar with much of this literature, as I coach and ran these arguments as a debater. My familiarity should not be read as an excuse not to talk about the assumptions/representations of the Aff and how those impact the policy the 1AC advocated. Instead, you MIGHT need less explanation of the argument in order for me to understand it, but, you still have to win the argument, too. The more specific to the Aff your critique is, the better.  Paperless—please include me in the ‘jump chain’/email before each speech. I will not open or read your speech document during your speech, but want the option of having evidence in front of me during CX and after your speeches. Prep time ends once a jump drive is pulled from the speaker’s computer. This should provide ample time for the debate and time for me to adjudicate. Remember, the longer it takes to finish the debate the less time I have to adjudicate, so it is in your best interest to be efficient.  Speaker points—are influenced by a variety of factors. While I do not have a specific formula for integrating all the variables, your points are reflected by (in no particular order): argument choice, clarity, execution, participation, respect for others, strategy, and time management. I tend to reward debaters for specific strategies, humor, personality and speeches free of disposable arguments. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Card Clipping—having judged several of these debates recently, I thought I would add this to my judging philosophy. Card Clipping is cheating. If the other team catches you, and is able to prove you were clipping, you will lose and get 0 points for the offense. If you want to make a challenge, the debate will stop and it is up to YOU to prove the offense.