Loofbourrow,+Wesley

Flow judge, 15+ years experience judging Policy, LD, Parli, Pofo at high school and college levels. National circuit LD debater in high school, little bit of college policy.

I strive to be as completely non-interventionist as possible. It would be unfair to the debaters for me to judge arguments according to my own personal views, just as it would be unfair for me to connect the dots between what I know about an argument and what a debater is presenting. I do not consider my own ideas, but I also do not give access to my years of scholarly reading either -- the onus is on you.

Speed -- I am comfortable with speed. If your style is to spread 400+ words a minute, I ask that you slow down when stating the author's name for my benefit. I consider speed most effective as a tool when it is used to introduce evidence from reputable scholarly sources, as I can always call for the cards (and if you want me to look at a specific card, take the time to ask me to do so in your speech). Debate is meant to be complex and often requires the presentation of substantial material to flesh out a position. Speed is also valuable during constructives to introduce shells and make initial refutations. However, in rebuttals speed tends to be less valuable, and in the final rebuttals when presenting voting issues, crystallization and final analysis weighing the issues in the round, speed can become detrimental. Be aware.

Value&Criterion/framework/theory -- I have no preferences whatsoever regarding the role of the ballot, my role as a judge, or the proper interpretation of what debate fundamentally is supposed to be. Am willing to accept any proposition or its opposite, depending on how who wins the argument. A policy debate can be about values, and a value debate can be about policy, you tell me. The debaters that are most successful in front of me will explicitly tell me how I am supposed to think, state their reasons why, refute the other side's standard, and then explain clearly and persuasively why their arguments/impacts should be given more weight as a result of how I am being instructed to think. I have no preconceptions about what is or is not appropriate regarding how I am supposed to think. Rounds that become coin-flips tend to avoid telling me how to think, and leave me comparing apples to oranges with no mechanism for doing so.

Impacts/weighing -- After establishing a claim/contention (what is true) and warrant (why it is true), impacts answers the question "Why is this important?". Spell out the impact clearly, and show me under which standard the impact matters. Weighing tells me why an argument is comparatively more important than other arguments in the round. Rounds that do not weigh arguments tend to be coin-flips as well, because even if you have instructed me on how to think, if you do not analyze how my thinking such and such way requires a conclusion that apples are more important than oranges, no guarantee I can do so. If a debater effectively establishes a value/criterion, and effectively weighs the arguments they are winning as more important than the ones they are losing, that is the best method for winning a round in front of me.

Voting Issues -- Effective strategy is to spend considerable time in the final rebuttals developing voting issues. Go out and win the round, compel me to vote for you. 10 second blip voting issues are rarely persuasive, although a defensive answer to an opponent's voting issues can be persuasive in a blip if warranted. A well argued voting issue will follow the simple claim/warrant/impact/weighing formula covered above, tracing the issue through all the speeches in the round in proper context. Make voters explicit, and hard-sell them as if it was the only time I had heard the argument in the round. Rely on extensions where necessary for the sake of coverage, but always balance the line by line with big picture thinking.

Kritique/Narratives - Receptive to critical analysis, nothing can be too bizarre or outlandish. Debate is one of the few intellectual spaces, perhaps for some of you the only space, where outlandish impossibilities can be considered. However, there are also reasonable arguments for why I should not consider impossibilities, so you still have to win that debate. When running a K it is imperative to articulate a clear interpretation of what is going on in the debate round (See theory above), and why critical analysis/discourse/etc. is more important than standard policy analysis. What world am I living in?

Extensions -- Clash is always better than extensions over extensions. Poor rounds can be caused by this "war of extensions", with both sides blindly insisting the other dropped their arguments and in the end nobody really debates anybody. If an argument really is dropped, extend it and I will assume the claim/warrant is true, but the impact and especially the weighing still must be done. A good strategy when you have dropped several key arguments is to try and outweigh them in your final rebuttal.

Topicality -- If there is anything I do have a leaning towards, I would say I have a high threshold for T. All things being equal, I am inclined to allow debaters to discuss whatever policies and issues matter to them, and thus I err on the side of allowing topics to be discussed if there is any reasonable argument that the case is topical. Conversely, I will absolutely vote on T if it is clearly proven that a case is not topical, provided that debaters provide clear standards for why being topical is important and being non-topical is a reason to reject (fairness, education, predictability, etc.). Reverse T-voters can also be very persuasive if the abuse is articulated clearly, and a warranted standard is provided.

Fiat -- There are reasonable arguments for why a proposed action should be assumed to occur, and reasonable arguments why it should not -- win that argument. Generally, fiat seems reasonable when targeting a single action by a single actor, and becomes less persuasive when multiple actions by multiple actors are assumed to occur. Fiat the President will do X, then fiat the rest of the world follows suit, then fiat world peace, then fiat poverty ends, then fiat Jesus/aliens come and we are all flying about in space in perfect harmony...strains credibility.

I disclose, unless prohibited by the tournament or for any reason the competitors do not want disclosure. An oral critique and clearly stated reason for decision will always be provided, while being sensitive to tournament time constraints. Generally I will not provide exhaustive written commentary. My written reasons for decision are usually no more than a sentence or two; examples: AFF wins value of Justice, persuades me that preventing dehumanization is essential for Justice; AFF successfully perms CP, answers DAs.

Please ask any questions not answered above before the round starts. I value good debates where both sides are informed about how the round will be judged.

Other thoughts:

New arguments -- I have a high tolerance for new arguments provided the other side still has a speech remaining. This is especially true in Parli & LD where the rounds are much shorter and there are less opportunities to speak. In Policy I am willing to accept an argument that the 2NR made a new argument that the 2AR does not have to respond to, and in few and far between cases will consider analysis to reject a new argument made in the 1AR. For all events, I will personally police the final AFF/Gov. speech, and if I think an argument is new I cross it off my flow and will not consider it. There is a fine line between a new argument and 1) further analysis, 2) a new answer, or 3) weighing, and I am sensitive to that.

In team events, tag team during speeches is fine, but I only flow the words of the actual speaker. And I'm pretty good at differentiating. Tag team answers in C-X are totally fine.

Parli -- the ability to ask a question during the opponent's speech is unique to this event, and the best debaters will utilize questions as weapons to advance the debate. Speakers should WANT to yield to questions, because they offer the opportunity to hear the next level of argumentation and a chance to respond. If a speaker does not yield to a question, and a consequence is that there is now insufficient opportunity to develop the idea (such as the MG ignores a question, now the block can only ask the question with no opportunity to respond to final Gov speech), articulate what you think the abuse is and why it matters. Point of Orders will be handled extremely quickly, so be prepared to be very very very very very brief -- example: Neg: "The claim that X will happen is a new argument"; Aff: "No, claim was mentioned in previous speech"...Me: "Argument is new (or not new), please continue speech."

LD -- C-X is the only time the two debaters interact with each other, so use it wisely. I pay attention to C-X, but I do not flow it. Arguments broached in C-X must be made in subsequent speeches in order to factor into a decision.

Courtesy & rudeness impact speaker points, but will generally not impact the decision, even if I am grossly offended. Exception is if an argument is successfully made in the round that the behavior of the other side is so egregious to warrant a vote against them. I won't drop someone without being told why I should do so, but I will listen if you really feel any discourtesy is so unspeakably ugly I have to vote against the other side.

I usually end up awarding at least one low point win per tournament, but only when they are warranted.

Logos, Pathos, Ethos -- poor debaters use 1 or 2, excellent debaters routinely use all 3, and elite debaters explain where and when each rhetorical tool is more or less important.

Forfeit due to Tardiness -- Generally I will allow at least 5 minutes beyond the stated time limit provided by the tournament. Any longer than that and you risk being dropped. At smaller tournaments I will try and contact Tab to figure where you are, but at large tournaments this is usually not possible.

Appeals/Problems with the Rules -- if there is any discrepancy in a round I am judging, please bring it to my attention immediately so I can have the opportunity to reach a fair and equitable solution that all competitors find suitable. Post-round protests slow the tournament down and create (usually unnecessary) stressful work for Tab and tournament directors, some of whom will be friends of mine, and all of whom are working very hard and appreciate not having to deal with extra problems. Anything that I can do on the spot to resolve an issue without involving tournament officials will save everyone involved time and energy. If an issue arises that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all competitors, I will decide how we will proceed at the time, and then I would like to know what future actions you and your coach plan on taking, to the best of your knowledge, so that I can inform the proper tournament staff of the situation. In no way is this meant to suggest that a debater should not seek the advice of their coach and/or pursue whatever available option that is believed to be fair, honest and appropriate.