Stump,+Blake

Blake Stump Midway High School (2009-2013) Baylor University (2013-2017) Last Updated: 9/4/2015

This is my third year out. I debated on the national circuit in high school, and am currently a junior debating at Baylor. If you have questions about anything feel free to email me at blakerstump@gmail.com.

Large portions of this philosophy are written under the assumption that I am judging a critique vs critique debate, as those are the debates I have most often found myself in the back of the room for. With that being said, if you are a team who does not usually go for critical arguments and you're reading this, **don't assume you need to over-adapt to me**. Ultimately my job is to decide who did the better debating, and what that means, I think, is up to you. Debate for me is an academic exercise that provides students a means to learn useful skills in communication and advocacy as well as to gain a bunch of useful knowledge across a wide range of important topics - as I spend more time thinking about debate, **I find myself enjoying any debate which involves explicit clash and well-executed strategy, regardless of argumentative style.** I would much rather listen to you make effective framework arguments if framework is actually a strategic option in the debate, than listen to you go for a critique you don't understand well. Also, **even if you don't read a "plan" (whatever that means), your affirmative should still reflect that you are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about this year's topic (US domestic surveillance policy).** I flow by hand. This means that you should keep in mind that I do not write as fast as I wish I could, and you should give me some pen time where necessary. You can generally go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, however **if you are very fast AND very efficient, you would do well to slow down about 15% in front of me** - it will significantly improve my ability to flow. Please stay clear during the text of your evidence – I try to write down warrants in cards too. The line by line is important, and **debate rounds where the focus is on the line by line are the rounds that I feel the most comfortable judging**. If that's not your typical style of debate, that's fine, but please try as hard as you can to make the clash obvious to me, and make it clear to me what is important. This does not mean that meta level framing is not important. You need to do both. I very rarely call for evidence as a part of making my decision, but I will if: a) the evidence is contested and is an important part of my decision, or b) none of the debaters have done warranted analysis of any evidence and I have to figure it all out for myself. The latter will almost always mean your speaker points are going to heavily suffer. I intend to follow the guidelines the NDCA has set for accusations of card clipping. Have fun, and be a nice, yet at the same time aggressive and passionate, advocate for your arguments.
 * __General Important Stuff__**
 * I do not default to an offense-defense paradigm, and I do not think there is "always a risk of a link." I think it is the burden of the team making a claim to prove it to be true.** This does not mean that I cannot be convinced to view your particular debate in an offense-defense paradigm, it means it's not my default.
 * An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact, and must contain all three of those parts to be evaluated**. "The alt doesn't solve, that's our X evidence" isn't an argument - explain the warrants in your evidence. This isn't so much a unique part of my judging philosophy as it is an objectively true statement, but you'd be surprised how many people don't understand this concept (or at least don't implement it in their speeches).
 * Prep time will stop when the jump drive leaves the computer.**

I am not persuaded by the argument that critiques do not belong in debate. Teams do not talk about the alternative enough. Does it solve the case, and if so, how? Is the aff possible post-alternative? Does the alternative resolve the material problems of a structure the aff critiques, or does it critique a structure that the affirmative attempts to resolve the material problems of, and why is the approach that you have chosen better? How is the alternative different from the permutation, and why does that distinction make the alternative alone preferable to the permutation? That being said, aff teams (especially "policy" teams) do not challenge the alternative enough either. For example, an endorsement of anti-capitalist knowledge production probably does nothing to resolve the immediate desire that actual terrorists have to blow other people up. This (not ground or fairness) should be your justification for getting to weigh your advantages: the fact that the impact scenarios are not constructed, and the plan likely solves them - because even if you win that getting to weigh your advantages in general is good for education or whatever, if the other team wins that your impact scenarios aren't real, then obviously your specific advantages are bad education, because they're lies. Links that are explained purely as omission are not persuasive to me, and likely lose to the permutation.
 * __Critiques__**
 * I likely have a higher standard when it comes to critiques I know well.** To name a few, these are anthro, afropessimism, ableism, some Baudrillard, Foucault, fem IR, queerness, and cap. Additionally, **when it comes to critiques I do not understand well (Deleuze, psychoanalysis), I will likely not immediately understand the relevant terms of art**. A more in depth and less jargon-y explanation of your arguments will be more necessary for these arguments in front of me than in front of someone who is more well-read in that particular literature base. That is not to say that I will not understand or that I will dislike your arguments - you should just know that I am less familiar with them because they are not arguments I deploy regularly.
 * A bunch of buzz words aren't going to be persuasive to me - even if I know what they mean. Explain your argument.**

I can be convinced that affirmatives without a stable advocacy text should not be allowed a permutation. Negative teams do not do enough to engage non-traditional affs. **Sometimes, framework isn't even close to the best option, even though the aff may not defend a plan. Do not go for a less strategic argument just for the sake of advancing your particular view of debate. That being said, sometimes framework/topicality IS one of the most strategic options**, and I recognize that. This equally applies to "K" teams - don't think you're "engaging" the aff just because you read a generic critique instead of framework. Arguments with specific links to the affirmative that interact with the other team's arguments in important ways are the best, most fun debates to watch.
 * __K Affs__**
 * Affirmatives should be in the direction of the topic.** This year, that means they should be about US domestic surveillance policy. **Whether teams choose to engage that topic by suggesting the hypothetical implementation of a plan by the USFG or by some other method is up to the debaters.**

I really hate being subjected to the same old politics debates I have been hearing for the past 6 years, but I understand why they're necessary. **Links that are specific to the aff are important, and you should also know that I probably have a higher standard for good evidence when it comes to politics as compared to other judges**. I don’t care if your evidence is from this morning and their evidence is from last night. Give me warranted explanations of why I should prefer your evidence on a particular subject and that’s what I’ll listen to and evaluate. I think that case-specific disads are awesome and that you should read them. It will at the very least show me you’ve done a lot of work, and will help with speaker points.
 * __Disads__**
 * There is such thing as zero risk of a link**, although it is probably difficult to prove that if the other team has even remotely decent evidence.

Solvency advocates that are specific to the aff are important. I’m not persuaded by solvency advocates that are generic to the topic. I think PICs that are specific to the aff are great and if you read/go for them, your points will reflect that.
 * __Counterplans__**
 * I won’t kick the counterplan for you unless the 2NR tells me to.** **That said, even if the 2NR tells me I can, it would probably be pretty easy for the 2AR to convince me not to.**
 * Please don't read your crappy, generic word PICs in front of me** (i.e. "the" PIC, "government" PIC, PIC out of capitalizing federal government, etc.)

Definitely slow down for these debates. I generally find topicality to be a better strategy than framework. I find "your aff is not about US domestic surveillance policy, you should lose because limits" to be more persuasive than "you were in the direction of the topic but didn't explicitly say the USfg should do a thing, so now you should lose or else you won't be able to make good decisions about buying a house later in life." I default to a competing interpretations framework for evaluating these debates. Most debaters are unable to even articulate how my decision calculus would change if I were to switch to a reasonability framework (hint: reasonability does not mean "we're almost topical and that's good enough").
 * __Topicality__**
 * I don't really go for these arguments (and don't answer them in a traditional fashion) so I have less experience with them**. I do feel comfortable evaluating T/FW vs K debates (I have a lot of those, and am perfectly willing to vote for T/FW), but I rarely have policy T debates.

Go for it if and only if it’s very clearly your best option for winning the round (i.e. if the other team drops conditionality, if you've clearly lost everything substantively, etc.). I would rather hear a debate about the topic than about the rules of debate, but I understand the strategic value of theory arguments. Cheater counterplans are cheating (delay, consult without a very specific solvency advocate, generic word PICs, etc). I have a low threshold for rejecting these arguments on theory, but you do have to actually make an argument.
 * __Theory__**
 * I am not a very good judge for these debates - you must slow down if you want me to be able to catch everything you're saying.** I don't really go for these arguments (and don't answer them in a traditional fashion) so I just have less experience with them.
 * Theory is always a reason to reject the argument, except in the case of conditionality.**
 * 2 conditional advocacies that are consistent with one another is fine. Anything more and you're definitely pushing it.**

I will adjust my speaker points to the tournament, but I intend to roughly follow this scale: 29.6-30: The best 29-29.5: Very, very good 28.6-28.9: Very good 28.3-28.5: Good 28-28.2: Ok 27.5-27.9: Ok, but had major errors 27-27.4: Needs improvement - major errors/lacked effort 26-26.9: Bad, and I intend for you to take it that way Below 26: You did something super offensive.
 * __Speaker Points__**