Spring,+Sarah

 Director of Policy Debate - University of Houston - Twitter @houstondebate  Email me with questions - sespring@uh.edu  Previously coaching at (Iowa, Miami (OF OHIO), Wake Forest)

 First rule of judging - judging is subjective.  Second rule of judging - get over it.  Judge philosophies are in fact an attempt to compensate for this inevitably subjective activity. We try to minimize personal opinions, but in the end who you vote for is more than often related to how you feel and the style of the debaters as much as it is about any particular argument. You have to convince the judge (me) to vote for you. This is as subjective as really any other activity.

 **T - A paradox** - I am a bad judge for T. I love T debates.  Competing interpretations doesn't make much sense to me because the aff can't win on T. Reasonability is largely good (I am not a good judge for trivial interpretations like "and/or means both") - see above re: subjectivity. //Reasonability is also a good answer to most affirmative theory complaints.// Legal topics are ideal for T debates, given that the law (particularly in terms of "presidential powers") is all about definition. I find these questions interesting, but in order to win on T with me as a judge, you typically need to have insightful argument and some decent evidence about the educational harm (and not just to negative ground) of the affirmative's interpretation. These arguments, of course, can take many forms, but be careful. **I'm nearly 100% convinced that nuclear weapons are part of the 'armed forces' ** Avoid specification arguments. Please. While implementation might be 90% of whatever, ASPEC is still not a reason to reject the affirmative.

I think T is an important check against non-topical affs, you have to read a plan and defend the federal government and your plan, reading the resolutions does not seem to be enough. Switch-side debate is a good thing.

**Framework/Non-plan Topicality arguments - ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Framework debates are not fun. I judge them a lot.I think that these debates have both gotten stale and also very detached from the actual arguments at hand. Both sides would do well to connect their arguments to the //actual// positions relevant to their debate. My previous statements about reasonability tend to apply in these questions as well. A small advantage to an very limiting interpretation is often not enough for me to justify a ballot. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">The best framework debates don't read the Shively card. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">My suggestion is to try to have a good interpretation that takes the middle ground, this will make me much more sympathetic and open to listening to your arguments. A violation is often overlooked by both sides, but is often where the crux of the decision lies - don't neglect this (or the "we meet")

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">**Theory –** I think in general most aff theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. That means theory is rarely rarely a voting issue for me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">I think conditionality is a good and necessary thing. Dispositionality is not a thing. I am open to kicking CPs on my own (without the encouragement of the negative) - I do indeed possess that power. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">PICS (or whatever) is not a reason to reject the CP, in these cases if the CP goes away the aff would still win. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">International agent fiat, in some cases, may be a legitimate test of the necessity of USFG action. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Fiating the Executive, seems to me, is very very close to object fiat. The semantical wiggle to say that the object is "authority" doesn't get the negative very far. I'm open to the aff relying on these arguments to make a CP go away. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **Disads –** Politics is a bit odd on this topic, given the dysfunction of our government and the oddity of the "link." Think through why the president's political capital might be on the line in the case of the plan (and not in the case of executive self-restraint) - //warning: I think the executive CP links more to politics (most of the time) than the plan//. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I won’t vote on 1% risk. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Magnitude and probability are far more important than timeframe. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> "DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Don't read a bunch of new impacts in the block unless you've got a real reason to do so. Most teams won't have a reason. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **Case debate.** I think debate should be more in depth debating of the specifics of an aff, I will reward hard work and understanding on the topic, which is often demonstrated in good case debating. The more specific your strategy is, the better. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Reading impact defense to all of their impacts //does not count// as a case debate (maybe necessary, but certainly not sufficient). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> There are rules for debating the case - http://goo.gl/FliJY The treaties topic was awesome because of case debates.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **CPs –** Most are good. I really like a smart advantage CP. Consult CPs and Condition CPs are cheating. How much cheating? It depends. See above on theory.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **K -** Critiques are often times strategic and I also think can be won very easily because the aff doesn’t attack the position at its weaknesses. Weakness of the K are often in the alternative, it seems to me that not enough teams pressure the alternative and its ability to solve the links or the case. I often end up voting for Ks when the aff fails to contest these issues. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Like any other argument, it has to be well explained. I also have an inherent distaste for generic backfile Ks (or consult CPs or Framework ....) that you have resurrected year after year because you were too lazy to do any work. I like debating new topics, don’t just cut one new Zizek book and consider your work done.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> As a grad student, I think I know a bit about critical theory and so forth -as a rhetorician there are things I like by trade - critiques of specific practices, well executed understandings of theory, that is to say criticism of actual instances of things that are objectionable. Things that I don't like (or understand very well) include vague psychoanalytic theory (ie Zizek) or rabbit-holes of very complicated post-structuralism - the event of the non-part or something.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **Other things** – I don’t like reading a lot of cards after the debate, although I know I will at times, I change my mind on this every couple of months. Right now, I'll probably skim a lot of cards and read some carefully. I will also probably be open to getting emailed your evidence during the debate, but won't really want to look at it until the end of the debate. Maybe during CX or prep to figure out something I missed. //Maybe//. I do think it is incumbent on the teams in the debate to communicate to the judge verbally, not via email. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> If I have to reconstruct the debate I might not see it like you think it happened. The final speeches MUST do this for me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I've taken to answering some questions in CX, particularly informative questions, especially if I think an answer might be confusing. How many perms? I'll answer. If you are just wrong about something, I might say something. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I'm very emotive during debates, you should look up and see if I'm scowling or nodding, this can be a clue (to what? I don't know, but to something). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Underviews are the worst thing ever.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I also think the 1NR should not be used to make new arguments. It is a rebutall not a constructive.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **Speaker Points –** I think I give fairly good points, simply because I think most debaters deserve a chance at clearing if they have the wins. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> My scale goes something like this; <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 26.5 and below – bad debating, <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 26.6 - 27 - Needs a lot of work, <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 27 -27.5 – average, but has a way to go, <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 27.5-28 - better than average, some things to work on, <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 28-28.5 – Good varsity debating. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 28.6 - 29 - Very good - should be in contention for a speaker award. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 29-29.5 – Excellent debating <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 29.6 - 29.9 - Almost Gabe. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 30 – Gabe

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I will punish your speaker points for lack of clarity, rudeness, or inappropriate language (these issues could also result in a loss). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I think clipping is bad, though I'm not sure what the threshold is to warrant a ballot. These questions stop the debate. If you are making an accusation of cheating, I will decide the debate on that question. You need to be fairly certain to make this kind of claim, so be ready to explain.