Hoverson,+Douglas

Doug Hoverson--Director of Forensics, Assistant Coach, Saint Thomas Academy, MN 25 years of coaching/judging. Have judged policy and L-D at national and local tournaments.

I'm an AP history and government teacher, and a published historian. Arguments that use bad history or bad constitutional theory will harm your credibility, and all your opponent has to do is breathe on them to take them out. However, arguments that show good historical or political insight will help, and don't necessarily need to be fully carded. Go easy on the Hitler comparisons.

1. Style and rules: I will not hesitate to say “slow” or “clear” if a debater is incomprehensible, but I can handle a medium fast debate with comfort and a fast debate if absolutely necessary. Too much speed just to get your blocks in is annoying. I like debate to be enjoyable and do not like to see abusive behavior in rounds, however I enjoy teams and debaters. that are able to blend humor into the round.

Rounds that are simply a matter of two debaters reading blocks at each other bore me and will hurt your speaker points. The best debaters actually engage at least part of what their opponent said. I realize that some resolutions are so broad that generics are necessary, but they should link somehow.

I flow card bodies, and I like to hear the arguments, not buzzwords. Don't just assume that you can say a couple words and I will fill in the blanks. You need to make the arguments.

2. (Policy Judging Theory: I view myself as a pure tabula rasa judge, I will usually default to policy maker or hypothesis tester if I am not told otherwise in round. As tabula rasa, I tend to be open to almost every argument provided it can be backed up if challenged. Therefore, I would listen to PIC’s, topical C-Plans, perms, and the like.)

LD Judging Theory: At some point the value should be important. If debaters have two different values, it's not always a good idea to simply declare them the same and move on to something else. I hold that standards/criteria/decision rules work best as the weighing method between two competing value premises, or a comparison between achievement of similar positions. I'm not as thrilled with the idea that the value measures whether or not a debater meets their own burden. That's original oratory, not debate. Any debater that cannot meet their own self-selected burden has problems.

I am willing to hear debates about what the role of the ballot is. Absent this, I will either compare worlds or test the truth, depending on what seems to be the best way to a clear decision.

I recognize that policy and L-D have essentially merged their arguments in recent years. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments that counterplans and perms and so on have no place in L-D. Of course, I'm also willing to listen to arguments that prove they are acceptable.

Given my choice, I would prefer a debate on subject matter, but I will evaluate theory debates fairly. Because I do not do any summer institute work, my understanding of some of the arcane points of theory is less sophisticated than many TOC judges. (I would also claim its less circular.) If the round comes down to a theory debate, it is the burden of the 2NR and the 2AR to make sure the implications of the theory arguments are absolutely clear.

Furthermore: I hate voting on tiny little spikes that got buried somewhere in the observations or at the bottom of a case and all of a sudden become a big issue in 2AR. I am generally unwilling to grant that any particular theory argument is an "absolute voter" unless you give me really good reasons why that aren't part of your 12-point list of why absolute voters are ok. If your opponent actually cures cancer in the round, I'm not going to vote them down just because they dropped your third jurisdiction voter. If you plan to throw around phrases like "terminal defense," you better be prepared to show how that is valid theory and how it works in the round.

Further, if you are doing a lot of kicking out of arguments, you should probably make it just a bit clearer than usual what you are kicking out of, and why. If I don’t have this clearly on my flow, I might decide based on my understanding of your strategy rather than an understanding that we both share. (In LD/Value, this applies to voting issues and standard debates.)

3. Evidence: I would prefer not to have to read evidence after a round, but I will if I think the in-round analysis of the evidence is inconclusive. I will read the underlined/highlighted parts, but I reserve the right to read the other parts of the ev. to determine if the ev. is taken out of context or so badly interpreted as to distort the meaning. I am interested in hearing challenges to the validity of evidence, but it needs to be mutual. If you criticize your opponent's methodology, you'd better have yours available and clear.

4. Other Issues: I am totally willing to vote for well-run K’s. The key here is well-run. Poorly-run post-modern crap makes me gag. I think K’s can be permuted, but again, I’d like a clear explanation of why. An alternative is probably necessary for the K to have much weight. I think it is possible for a debater to win an argument (on a K, DA or something) with just defense. Not everything has to be turned. That said, you need some offense somewhere. If you're going to run topicality, I prefer that it be because something really isn't resolutional, rather than just because you need some theory spikes. I will only drop the debater rather than the argument for something that is really abusive in round. Why should I drop a debater because you beat their Disad? It just takes out the argument. If you're going to do flex prep, that needs to be agreed on before the round.

I don't think that it is the burden of one debater to provide strategy for their opponent. Therefore the question "how do I win this round?" is annoying. It is relevant if you have been denied any ground, and only then.

Any questions, please ask before the round.