Greenstein,+Michael

Greenstein 2014 Judge Philosophy -- Director of Debate Glenbrook North High School

Recently, debate has become quite a bit worse than it has been during the last decade and a half. Not necessarily from the content of debates, but because in general I find that debaters can't or don't flow, they do not engage in line by line debate resulting in no clash and many unresolved issues, and they rely on very broad claims that are not explained and are underdeveloped. The flowing debacle no doubt is somewhat a result of paperless debate and debaters' reliance on speech documents as a means to figure out what their opponent said. However, I blame the bulk of the decrease in debate quality on judges. The average judge today will vote on arguments without warrant or development. The average judge today does not require debaters to specifically engage the arguments or their opponent, but instead is willing to piece together the rants of both teams and try to determine how the arguments apply to each other. The evolution of modern debate has made me very afraid that debate today is at risk of failing to provide students the many benefits that is has for so long.

Please know that I am a high school teacher and consider a primary duty of mine to be an educator despite the fact that debate presents itself as a competitive forum. In recent years there have been a few times where students have made arguments in debate that are not appropriate for a high school forum. If such arguments enter a debate I judge, I will stop the debate and explain to the students why the arguments are inappropriate, and will vote against the team that made the arguments.

A few new things you want to know if I'm judging you:  When I evaluate who wins a debate, I am primarily concerned with the consequences of the plan. When I decide who wins a debate, these consequences (good or bad) will be the central criteria for how I reach a conclusion of which team emerges victorious.

I will treat accusations of racism, sexism etc. as serious as most judges treat an accusation of clipping. If a team makes an accusation of this nature, I will stop the debate and make a determination if this is true given what I have witnessed during the debate. If I conclude a team has been racist etc. I will give both students 0s and vote against the team. If I conclude a team has not been racist etc. or there is not enough evidence provided to reach a conclusion, I will give both students on the accusing team 0s and vote against them.

What about topicality? Yes, the plan must be topical. You of course could still win a debate on the plan is not topical.

What about Kritiks? Yes, I will vote on them. But, for me to vote on a Kritik you have to explain how whatever you are kritiking implicates the outcome/implementation of the plan otherwise it’s not a relevant consideration. Tips for success in front of me: 1. The number one thing I still need to say is that stylistically, clarity is of utmost importance. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the other team a bunch of leeway in answering it. Speed is great; just make sure you are comprehensible.

2. I give preference to explanation of arguments and actual debating over evidence. This is not to say I do not read evidence or use evidence to make decisions, but again when I evaluate issues how an issue is debated is more important to me than what unexplained or compared evidence says.

3. Despite what I said above, I think it’s fairly easy to beat bad arguments. Usually you just have to make a logical or intelligent argument or two… but you have to answer them still.

4. Explain and Impact Arguments. I know this sounds obvious, but at the end of rounds (even between great teams) I constantly find myself wishing there was a) far more explanation of arguments in general and b) discussion of what it means for the sheet of paper and/or rest of the debate if an argument is won.

5. It really bothers me that people judge differently at the NDT/TOC then they do at every other tournament the rest of the year. I will try my best to judge as I did throughout the year.

6. I don’t know what this means or why I am writing it, but being affirmative is getting insanely hard. More affirmatives should at least attempt to win a debate or defeat a counterplan via theory.

7. I hate judges who think an amazing speech deserves only a 28.5. If you are sweet, you will get sweet points. Also, the funnier you are and the more you can make me laugh the better your points will be.