Massey,+Jonathan

School: Walt Whitman HS, Bethesda, MD

I am a parent judge but also a former high school policy debater (Lake Braddock HS in Virginia, 1981) and NDT debater in college (Harvard, 1985). I know it's hard to believe, but even in the Dark Ages long ago, debaters talked as fast as they could, read lots of cards, and made crazy arguments. That was I.

In the 1980s, I judged innumerable high school and college policy rounds and taught at policy debate institutes at Wake Forest, Kentucky, Georgetown, and American University. Since 2006, I have judged LD.

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, although I find in practice that complete non-intervention is typically impossible. Still, I believe that debate best serves its educational value (and is most fun for the debaters) when the judge intervenes least. I will not presume aff or neg.

I still flow pretty well and vote off the flow. I am fine with speed. At heart, I am a lazy judge. I want to do as little work in the round as possible. Please tell me how your framework takes out your opponent's case, how you meet her value criterion, and how to weigh arguments. I don't want to think for you or your opponent. If neither of you tells me how to resolve the round, I will try my best to apply what I perceive to be the shared understanding of the order in which I should resolve the issues, the appropriate framework, and so on. But I really would prefer to be spoon-fed.

If you label something a voting issue and give me a warrant, I will vote on it. However, a blippy or weakly warranted argument doesn't need much to refute it. I will vote on theory, a prioris, counterplans, Ks, critical arguments -- in short, whatever you want to argue. I am fine with creative, counter-intuitive, and weird arguments -- in fact, I affirmatively like them and tend to reward them with higher speaker points.

I will listen to analytics as well as evidence. Ceteris paribus, they carry equal weight. I love debaters who listen to and analyze their opponents' evidence. I find that most cards do not say what debaters claim. I am impressed by people who point this out. Similarly, I am very impressed by debaters who know when an author is being cited for a conclusion with which he or she does not ultimately agree. Intelligent commentary on evidence is an easy ticket to high speaks in my book.

That said, I am not a point fairy. I don't give out 30s unless you really earn it. On the other hand, I try not to go below 28 unless you make a significant mistake.

I am probably more tolerant than most judges of quick answers in the 1AR. I know you are under pressure because of the time skew. You do not need lengthy explanations of the warrants in your case in order to extend it. You can be quite telegraphic. Conversely, I am relatively intolerant of new answers in the last rebuttals.

I don't like rude debate but frankly have hardly ever seen it. If you are an experienced national circuit debater and are hitting a novice in a randomly paired round, please go easy when it becomes apparent that you will win the round. Do not reduce your opponent to tears. I will let you know that you are winning.

I will generally disclose, but I am very sensitive to the need of tournaments to run on time, so I will often truncate my explanation. Please don't take it personally.