James,+Andrew

Last Updated: 10/08/2012 (added 3a)


 * Background:** I debated for 4 years in high school for Edina High School and debated for two years at Marquette University. While in college, I was the varsity coach for Marquette University High School. I coached the Edina High School novice team in 2007-08, took a few years off to finish law school and secure a job, and have returned to the activity as the varsity coach at Eagan High School. I currently work as an attorney in the securities industry.


 * General Thoughts on the Activity:** I believe the only rules in debate are those established by the tournament (usually just speech durations and orders). I also believe that a judge should intervene as infrequently as possible and the team that best explains why they won the round should win the ballot. Everything else, as far as I’m concerned, is up for debate.

I like good, common sense arguments. I am persuaded more by a logical argument or analogy than 15 cards read at incomprehensible speeds. I also love creativity in a round. What this means can vary, but good examples are cases with creative (read: strategic) plan texts, a witty solvency deficit argument on a counter-plan, or nuanced case-specific arguments. In general, I think debaters should do whatever they’re good at and enjoy. Just be prepared to explain why that means you should win the round.

Please note that I have minimal judging experience over the past few years, so I highly encourage debaters to avoid the temptation to treat me like a robot with a pen. If you’re going to speak quickly, make sure it’s clear – otherwise I likely will miss important points that could haunt you at the end of the round. If you’re going to extend an argument, make sure to explain the warrant. If you’re going to use an acronym or buzzword, make sure to explain and define what you’re talking about. As I said, use common sense. Also, you should assume that you’re more familiar with your arguments than I am, because it’s almost certainly true.


 * Useful Advice if I’m Your Judge:**


 * (1)** I quickly become frustrated in rounds where there is little or no clash. Good debaters are able to identify where there is no clash. Great debaters can identify where there is some clash, but not enough to negate the underlying warrant of the evidence or argument. I have a healthy respect for debaters that actually think about the arguments.


 * (2)** I strongly dislike calling cards. If a card is important enough that you want it re-read, you should re-read the warrants of that card as often as necessary during the round to get the point across. I will call a card as a last resort, but that typically means the round was sloppy and that I feel I can’t evaluate the round without intervening.


 * (3)** Speed is ok until you sacrifice clarity. If I can’t understand you, I will miss some of your arguments. If you tell me to extend an argument that is not on my flow, it will look very much like a new argument, or possibly a trick designed to sneak an argument onto the flow that didn’t previously exist. The best way to avoid this conundrum is to just speak clearly.


 * (3a)** After judging 10 or so rounds with paperless debate, this previous point deserves more elaboration. The single biggest annoyance that I have with paperless debate is that teams construct their speeches in a text file rather than on a flow and have shifted away from (a) clash, and (b) signposting. The word "and" is usually not a good enough transition between arguments to allow me to hear the end of the previous argument and the beginning of the next. If you're going to read at blazing speeds, I highly recommend using either numbers, letters, or actually slowing down in-between arguments if you want me to hear everything. Or, at the very least, do a great job of letting me know where in the debate I'm supposed to be flowing something (e.g., "Next, on the perm..."). If your strategy is to read as many arguments as you can, as quickly as you can get them out, and hope that the judge can keep track of them all I'm probably not a good judge for you. I'll do my absolute best to keep up, but please keep in mind that I don't have your speech flashed in front of me like your partner and the other team. It is in your best interests that I hear all of your arguments, so I suggest that you go 90% capacity and instead focus on clarity and organization.


 * (4)** Rather than write a lengthy topicality dissertation here, I will simply state that I like a good topicality argument with meaningful definitions and a well-developed case limits debate. Use specifics -- what cases would be topical (or not) under your interpretation? What links would be lost? What arguments are added to or eliminated from your arsenal and why are those arguments particularly good or bad for debate? But all of that can be rendered moot with a good, common sense “we meet” argument.


 * (5)** I am willing to vote on theory, but it has to be well explained and developed. I rarely vote on something just because a debater called it a “voting issue.” And if you spit 8 minutes of theory at me, be prepared to actually explain what it means in the rebuttals, because I’m going to be looking for an abuse story.


 * (6)** The average debater receives speaker points from me around 27.5 or 28. I reserve 29s for excellent performances and 29.5s for performances that I deem elite (probably a top-10 performance on the season). To earn a 30, it has to be the best individual performance that I expect to see all season.


 * (7)** Cross-x, if used effectively, is a good way to earn an extra .5 or 1.0 speaker points from me. Don’t waste that opportunity.


 * (8)** More than anything, have fun. If you’re having fun and being friendly, chances are that I’m having a good time.