Rogers,+Christopher


 * Updated**: 10/30/15

I primarily judge for **Canyon Springs**.


 * Experience**: I have been judging/coaching for seven years.

I don't have any firm rule about what is too fast. Basic human conversation is about 150 words per minute. When I work with students I tend to write cases that presume 200 to 225 words a minute. If you are around that territory you are probably fine, though different people are clearer at different speeds. If you are approaching or over 300 words a minute I likely won't be able to follow you. I don't give any verbal cues that you are going too fast. Basically, you can deliver at any rate you want, but if I can't follow what you are saying then I won't flow it. If you do spread and the opponent runs an anti-spreading K I will likely weigh that heavily. I always hope when I go into a round that no theory arguments will be run and both opponents will focus on the resolution. That said, if your opponent did something abusive, the only way to deal with that is a theory argument. To put this another way, I think the more time is spent on theory in debate, the worse it is for education. It is an essential check for fairness, but shouldn't be a part of your debating strategy. **Critical (K) Arguments**: By critical argument I am referring to arguments that attack the underlying assumptions of an opponent's argument about what should be accomplished. I don't have any problem with critical arguments, though my experience is that most debaters don't spend nearly the time necessary to actually establish the argument in the round. For example: Trying to make a Nietzsche criticism in under thirty seconds is absurd. I do expect K arguments to actually link to the resolution/debate. Ks that feel like they could be run regardless of the resolution I will not weigh. Example: If the Aff runs an advantage about improving the economy and you want to respond with a Cap K that the standards of 'good' in capitalism are not actually 'good', fine. If the Aff is talking improving about improving privacy rights and you respond with the Cap K, there is no link (there could be a Privacy K, Autonomy K, etc, but it has to link). **Complexity**: I think many debaters confuse complexity with quality. I'm not judging your case on the lexile score of the words you use. **Prep Time**: Prep ends when you take your flash drive out if you are flashing. If not flashing it ends when you when you begin to move to wherever you are speaking. Please give a verbal indication that prep is ending so that everyone can stop their timer at the same time.
 * Role of the Judge**: I believe that my role as the judge is to have a paradigm that best encourages education. When I first started judging I took a very Tabula Rasa approach and allowed students to argue what the factors were that should be voted upon. After many rounds, and many messy debates, I think it is better if I as the judge have a few firm standards entering the round.
 * Speed of Delivery**: I started as a policy judge and because everyone was spreading I assumed that was what was best for debate. After I got used to listening to spreading though I came to the conclusion that the prevalence of spreading in debate is awful for education. This is a speech event, not a competitive reading event.
 * Theory Arguments**: By theory arguments I am talking about what should or should not be done in debate.
 * Resolution**: I expect debaters to focus on the resolution. Straying from the resolution or trying to make the debate about arguments that don't link destroys the ability to clash over issues (and usually turns it into a clash over theory which, as said above, I don't think helps education). By showing up to debate you have agreed to the resolution. If you don't like the resolution then become involved in the NSDA's process for nominating and selecting resolutions.
 * Voters**: Excepting arguments about theory discussed above, I want to vote on the resolution, not the debate. Thus I prefer 'voters' to be put in the context of 'this is why X should be done (or X is right)' and not 'this is why I should win'. From the beginning to the end of the debate you should be trying to convince me that your side of the resolution is correct.

__//**LD**//__
 * Overview**: As LD is a moral debate, I believe the issues should be discussed in very broad terms. We are examining right and wrong, not necessarily whether an idea is right or wrong in the here and now (though the here and now is of course relevant, and you are perfectly within your rights to argue that morality needs to be defined by time period). As we are discussing morality, it is very hard to prove that someone is 'wrong' on an absolutist point. If one person says a person has a moral obligation to aid society, and another person says people are autonomous entities with no bonds to society, neither person is "wrong" (nor do I expect that as debaters you can resolve issues that have been discussed for thousands of years in a forty-five minute debate). My judging will focus upon how you explain your value, how you tie it to the resolution, the evidence you use to prove it, and the arguments you make against your opponents value/case.


 * Parallel Burden**: Each side has an equal burden in debate. Neither side has more or less of an obligation to prove their side. The negative has the right to make their own argument. They don't have to just respond to the Aff. If all the Neg does is attack the Aff and never makes their own arguments for why their side is right I will likely vote Aff.


 * Values**: If your arguments/contentions don't actually uphold your value it will severely hurt your case. I most commonly see this where a person will give a value/criterion that is not utilitarianism (or one of the many theories close to util), and then spend the rest of the debate talking in utilitarian principles.


 * Plans**: I usually find that in LD plans aren't topical. Either they specify an actor that the resolution doesn't have or they try to narrow the ground to make it easier for them to debate. I think plans in LD make the overall debate worse.


 * General**: There isn't enough time to in the debate to prove the resolution 100% true or false, nor do I expect you to. The standard is to show the resolution to be generally true or false. Example: If the resolution was: 'A just society has freedom of speech' and the Neg argued 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater' I wouldn't give much weight to the example as even though there exceptions to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


 * NC**: The NC is a constructive speech and, as such, does not have to argue against any of the points brought up in the 1AC. If the Neg focuses all of their time on making their own argument, they have __not__ dropped the aff points from the flow.

I will note that I think this is very bad strategy and I am not encouraging the Neg to do this, but it is their option if they wish to pursue it.


 * Common Knowledge**: It is perfectly acceptable for a debater to make a point and say the facts that support it are "common knowledge" if it is actually something that is commonly known. Debaters are allowed to disagree over what is or is not common knowledge, but I do not require that debaters have cards for every possible argument that could be made as I think debate should be fluid and it is impossible to predict every course an argument can take.

However; while common knowledge arguments are acceptable, they are not ideal, and having the factual information with you is always better.


 * Expert Opinion**: When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There is informed opinions, but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option, I neither encourage nor discourage that approach.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.


 * Facts/Cards**: A great LD case can have zero cards, or dozens. Some arguments require strong factual backing, some rely completely on ethical principles. Neither position is automatically superior and I will evaluate cards based upon how they further an argument and relate to the resolution.


 * Debate Structure**: We are here to debate a resolution and morals, not the time-frames that have been given for the debate.

__**Cross-ex**__:
 * Questions/Etiquette**:Whoever is asking questions during cross-ex may interrupt the person answering if they think they are taking too long or avoiding the topic and I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification ('are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention', 'how do you define greatly'', for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.
 * Devil's Advocate**: I judge the person answering questions, not asking. You may play devil's advocate during cross ex and ask questions even if your case has/will disagree with the assumption of your question. Also, as a person may ask questions as a devil's advocate, you can not use the questions they ask against them ('my opponent asked me why we should care about whether everyone can vote, which shows he doesn't care about the poor'). Asking a question does not make the question part of your case.
 * Facing**: You must face the judge when asking/answering. I will interrupt if debaters face each other.

__//**Policy**//__ 1) is the plan topical 2) after considering the advantages and disadvantage evidence, does the plan improve the status quo, 3) is there a unique and superior neg counter-plan or kritik. If the Aff passes these three standards they win. If the plan does not, the Neg wins I vote on the worth of the plan, counter-plan, kritik regardless of my opinion of who were the better debaters; however, I assign speaking points on debating performance.
 * Overview**: My basic approach to policy judging is that the aff must convince me that their plan answers the resolution and improves the status quo. At the end of the debate I will ask three ask questions:

__**Case**__
 * In Depth**
 * Plan**: I like to see clear, concise plans. I favor arguments that are very specific in their proposal over arguments that are general. As an example, I'd rather hear an argument that we should build a high speed rail on the western seaboard, then just expand high speed rail without specifics. This is a general rule and I fully understand that most plans will be broad propositions given the limited time frame of policy debate.
 * Burden**: The aff must prove to me that their cases improves the status quo. To do this the aff must first establish what problems currently exist, how they will solve, and what the impact will be. They then must prove why their ads outweigh/counter the disads run by the neg.
 * Perspective:** My assumption is that we are arguing from a utilitarian perspective; the government is trying to enact plans that would benefit the greatest number of people, and that the aff is proposing a plan to accomplish that end. This perspective may be changed by kritiks, but that is the assumption until another position is argued. I expect arguments to focus on the impact to citizens of the United States, but not to the complete exclusion of the rest of the world. Strength/probability of impacts is the most important factor when comparing competing impacts; if strength/probability is equal more immediate impacts outweigh distant impacts.

__**Topicality**__
 * Approach**: Topicality is my first voting issue. The aff must be topical. If an aff is non-topical, they lose. However, I give the benefit of the doubt to the aff that they are topical. The neg must disprove topicality. Unless I am convinced the aff plan is non-topical, I will allow it.
 * Abuse**: I do not need the reasons why topicality is important explained to me or how an aff is abusive. Either an aff answers the resolution and is allowed, or doesn't and thus should lose.
 * Arguments**: I want arguments about topicality to mainly focus on the definitions of the resolution and how the aff does or does not meet those definitions. After the 1AC I will generally ask myself if an Aff is topical or not before the 1NC speaks. If I consider the aff topical by that point it is very unlikely that I will be swayed to consider it non-topical. I dislike neg teams that reflexively run topicality against affs that are clearly topical as I consider it a waste of debating time and educational opportunity, but I do encourage it if there are logical reasons to consider the aff non-topical.
 * Uniqueness**: Plans must be unique. That means that the plan changes the status quo. I define the status quo as any actions currently existing or planned by the government (bill passed by Congress or plan enacted by a federal department).
 * Voting**: Topicality is the first issue I will decide. If the neg has not convinced me of the topicality of the argument, the aff plan is allowed. If they have convinced me, the aff loses. Once I decide this, I don't consider the topicality question in the rest of my decision.

__**Evidence/Cards**__
 * Relevancy vs. Recency:** Recency is not, by default, more important. If you are going to argue that your card is superior to your opponents' because of recency, you need to argue why recency matters (i.e. "since the time their card was written, the issue has changed in X way, thus our card by being more recent is more relevant"). I greatly enjoy relevancy discussions, though I very rarely hear them. When there is an evidentiary clash, I would like teams to tell me why the authors of their cards are better sources than their opponents'.
 * Logic**: A card must be proven. You do not need a card to disprove a card if you can make a logical and convincing argument why the card does not make sense in the context that it is being used. The best way to counter a card is with a superior card, but it is perfectly acceptable to attack the logic that your opponent is utilizing in using their card.
 * Clipping**: I have frequently seen teams clip a section out of context from a card to make it say something more than what the card argues, or, occasionally,to create an entirely different point. I consider it a huge blow to either side if it is proven that their cards/authors don't actually say what the team that introduced it claims they said. A team may drop any card they introduce; however, they may not drop the fact that they considered the source they used important and the other team is free to use their opponents' dropped cards against them.

__**Neg**__
 * Conditional Arguments:** It is hard to give a statement on whether or not the Neg can be conditional as there are wide variety of ways in which it can be done. Thus if the Neg makes a conditional argument and the Aff says they shouldn't, I'll make my judgment based on the arguments in the round.
 * Political Capital Disads**: I put an extreme burden on political capital disads and generally find them unpersuasive. The resolution is asking what the federal government should do so I allow the aff to fiat that the plan is implemented for the US. However, I have voted for negs before with extremely well argued and constructed political capital disads, so they are an option for the neg, but one that has very rarely worked with me.
 * Counter-plans**: A CP, to win, must be exclusive from the plan and superior. The Neg must give good reasons why their CP negates the need for the plan. A CP cannot just be a superior plan; it must be an alternative to the plan that makes the plan unnecessary. As an example; if the aff runs high speed rail to relieve congestion, the neg may run expanded highways to do the same thing; as both plans accomplish the same goal the neg is unique (and then I would weigh the evidence about who improves the status quo more). If the aff runs ice breakers and the neg runs high speed rails I will likely accept a perm/do both from the aff that they do very different things (unless the neg can give an effective argument why they both could not exist, i.e. economics).
 * Kritiks**: I accept kritiks, but please note that a kritik is an affirmative defense and, as such, the neg assumes the burden of proving their argument. By running a kritik, you must prove to me that your world view should be considered superior and the aff now has the benefit of being on the defensive. Given this requirement, I recommend that if a team is going to run a kritik they spend the majority of their argument on it.

__**Cross-ex**__:
 * Questions/Etiquette**:Whoever is asking questions during cross-ex may interrupt the person answering if they think they are taking too long or avoiding the topic and I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The team answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification ('are you asking about the card from the 1AC or 2AC', for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.
 * Tag Teaming**: My default opinion on tag teaming is that it is not allowed. By this I mean, the debaters not involved in the cross-ex may only communicate to their partner by passing papers/whispers (just like a speech). If both teams would like tag teaming, then I will allow it.
 * Facing**: You must face the judge when asking/answering. I will interrupt if debaters face each other.


 * Performance**: In concept, I have no problem with performance based arguments. In practice, I've never seen one that worked.


 * Brink Arguments**: I consider it unnecessary to prove that the plan will push over a brink point, either economically, environmentally, etc. It is acceptable to argue/prove that something is getting worse, that the plan will contribute to it getting worse, and that this will eventually lead to X impact.


 * 1% Chance Arguments**: If you argue that I should vote for you even if there is a one percent chance of your argument happening, I probably won't vote for you and will consider you silly. You must prove your arguments to me, not just argue that there is some remote chance of a chain reaction of events leading to nuclear war because America created an infrastructure bank. There is not enough time in policy to disprove every possible permutation of reactions to a policy plan/counter-plan. Convince me that either something good or bad will happen because of the plan/counter-plan/kritik, not just that something really good or really bad has a remote chance of occurring. I will consider impacts either likely, probable, or improbable. Something that is barely plausible goes in the improbable category and is not weighed as an impact..