Maurer,+Samuel

Samuel Maurer

 Director of Debate at ESU - 2006-2014 Currently Assistant Director at Wichita State ***NOTE: I'm tired of debaters saying they're ready, looking over their speech doc/materials, thinking for a few seconds and then saying "wait, I need more prep" or going to the bathroom and doing the same. Stop doing that -- when you're up, you're up. If not, speaker points will suffer. Hi. I generally judge all kinds of debates. So I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out. Know when its smarter to slow down  -- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.  -- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)  -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison. Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me.  Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.  -- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.  -- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.)

 -- flowing – I try to write down every name you say in rebuttals and call for evidence when I feel its appropriate. I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends. I often don’t call for a lot of evidence. Allowing pen-time on important author names is important. However, I will occasionally be inclined to call for “uq cards that say X” after a debate and so on. But my inclination is not to call for cards by category. I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…” Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. If the debate comes down to an aff winning latina/o voters and the neg winning ohio, don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why Ohio is the ballgame or vice versa. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Consult/conditions cps: don’t think they’re really that legit but I rarely think affirmatives make the right arguments. Don’t take it out of the 1NC, just be aware that with all the cards on the table, I’m probably erring aff on this question. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Critical and non-traditional affs/framework as a response: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. In fact, I think this year I’ve voted more often for “nuclear war outweighs your non-unique disad (kritik)” more often. However, to be fair, I think that when it comes down to it, it is hard to find something about the resolution that excludes kritikal frameworks (impact evaluation mechanisms) from debate. Thus, if you are going to rely on beating “crazy” affs with T/framework, I may not be the perfect judge for your debate. On balance, I tend to think that in the great alphabetic and polemic struggle between K and T, the former wins. However, like I said, I’ll vote on framework if you win it. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another and mentioning reality more often means the concept 'reality' rather than, say, a corndog. Examples make critical animate -- use them.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Speaker points: I give out very low speaker points. Click on the link next to my name to see what I’m talking about.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an a-hole or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I also calculate educational demeanor and candor in debates. If you find yourself matched against and very inexperienced opponent and do your best to make sure they get something out of the debate (while, of course, still beating them), I have an inclination to reward speaker points.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it. If I call for a card after a debate and you didn’t read the whole thing, you clipped that card. If I call for a card after a debate and you didn’t read the whole card but are willing to mark it for me, I won’t evaluate the evidence because the other team was not privy to the mark. I don’t think its shady and I understand that your busy during your speech, but I still won’t read/evaluate the evidence.