Davis,+Mike

Mike Davis

Mike Davis – James Madison University Years Coaching: 13

An update of my judging philosophy is probably long overdue. Recent developments in what counts as debate argumentation has forced me to reconsider my role as critic. I have always believed that debate is for the debaters and the rules are always up for interpretation, negotiation and debate. However, I have become increasingly frustrated with the inability of teams to adopt frameworks that allow for meaningful debate.

Now maybe you are saying “Mike - it’s sad that you think you know what is right for us or that you should be able to intervene based on what your believe debate should be.” You should read the first paragraph of this judging philosophy as a claim that debate should be fair for both sides. If you believe that me imposing the standard of fairness in debate is me intervening then I guilty as charged.

I think debate is a game. It has some educational benefits, but those educational benefits are often lost if the framework for the debate does not allow for significant clash. I study argumentation and I think that our ability to debate about significant issues (as you, the debaters, define them) is what is great about our activity and our society. Your framework for debate should allow for fruitful and meaningful discussions within the game of debate.

So, as you are doing you judge preferences (or reading this for the first time five minutes before the debate starts) what does this mean you should do in the debate. Here are some guidelines:

1.	You should be able to explain why your framework meets two criteria. First, how is your framework related to the resolution. I don’t think that you necessarily have to read a plan or rely on traditional debate evidence or defend fiat, but I think you should be able to explain how you are related to resolution. Second, and probably more importantly, how is that relationship to the resolution fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? 2.	I tend to be more flexible when it comes to the negative. I think that a negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Obviously clashing with the affirmative is more fun debate for me to judge, but not a necessary requirement for the negative. 3.	If you say “I don’t want to defend anything on the affirmative” or “This sounds oppressive” then you don’t want me judging you anyway. If you say “We can fit our arguments into this paradigm” then please pref me. I try to be as fair as possible in debates and I work hard to meet you on your terms.

Argumentative Preferences:

Negative Kritiks – I like Ks. The best Ks are ones that directly engage the affirmative. I am probably more liberal than most when it comes to what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not).

Affirmative Kritiks – Similarly to my stance on negative Ks I think the affirmative Ks should have some relation to the what the negative says or to the resolution. I have voted on kritiks of the debate community, but these debates are much more persuasive to me when combined with some explanation about how the negative helps support or reify those norms.

Topicality/Procedurals – I like T debates and other procedural arguments a lot. I think I am kind of a geek about the way the political process works so I tend to enjoy debates that ask questions about the way the system normally works. That being said these arguments are significantly better when accompanied by evidence to prove your interpretation. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot.

Theory – I am a hard judge to get to vote on theory. I tend to judge theory debates the same way I judge policy debates. You should win a link (they are a pic), an impact (pics are bad) and implications (why voting against them matters). When multiple theory arguments exist in the debate I often weigh the impact of each theory argument.

Disads – Most DAs are pretty bad. Of course, so are most of your affirmative advantages. Debaters rely too much on evidence and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly.

Cplans – This is probably where I have the fewest dispositions. I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. However, I am equally likely to vote for either.

Performance debates – See above. I tend to find performance debates interesting. If you are affirmative relate what you do to the topic. When you are negative contrast what you with what the affirmatives does. Warning: Explain the implications of your performance to me. What happens if you win the argument that traditional debate evidence is bad? Do they lose the debate for reading the evidence in the first place or do I just not consider that type of evidence?

Some other things:

1.	It is your job to be clear. I will say clearer once. After that if you are still unclear and I miss arguments it’s your bad. 2.	Be nice – I hate people who are jerks in debates. I have been known to destroy your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Debates are best when they are competitive without people being jerks. 3.	Author names are not arguments – They are helpful in that I know what cards you think I should as for after the debate, but when they are not coupled with warrants from the evidence they are not very useful. “Davis 05” is not argument by itself. 4.	I work extremely hard in making my decisions because I know that as a debaters you work extremely hard as well. You can do lots of things to make my life easier so I do not have to do as much work. Things like if then statements and explaining the warrants behind your arguments will get you pretty far in my book. 5.	Don’t steal prep – Every second of prep you steal is a moment of my life I can never have back. And it’s cheating. 6.	Debate should be fun. If you are not enjoying yourself (and making the experience enjoyable for others) then you should spend your time doing something else.

Thanks for listening let me know if you have any questions.