Zin,+David

Having been out of the college circuit almost 20 years, I probably rate as one of those judges I found frustrating when I debated—a dinosaur. I’ve been back working with high school debaters for several years now. That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and I certainly have not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that have occurred over the years. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of Kato, Taoism, Heidegger, or whoever/whatever, you may not like the results you get. Half the time I still struggle to be conversant about what many of these arguments involve unless somebody prompts me regarding the content (indigenous peoples and nuclear development, anthropocentrism, tech=evil, etc.) --so don't just rely on the label of the argument when you first present it.

Having discussed some of my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to implement the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the plan. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong game-like aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. As such, I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach and there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I can be convinced of doing so. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

The biggest problem I observed when I judged college rounds, and usually observe at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use.

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim your opponent made.

I have been known to like both theory args and T, but I would really prefer they unfold with real analysis rather than a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. If you feel an argument commits one of these offense, don't just spit out a tag: explain why the argument denies ground, is abusive, or a time suck. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. I do struggle with arguments that mix traditional procedural arguments with substantive impacts. Should I vote to reduce a small risk of extinction over the impact of reduced education because the aff is not topical, or rejecting racism vs fairness associated with conditionality/topicality/etc.. Often I am asked to make such comparisons but 2nr/2ar recognize the flow as presenting this issue and nobody explains if I should treat the procedural matter in the same or different way as other arguments in the round. I have a preference to treat procedural issues separate from the rest of the round--certainly I will do that if an evidence challenge is made or other type of ethical abuse--but getting some guidance from the debaters would be great.

As for argument preferences, while I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, I dislike being put in that position. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow. "Even if" is a great way to begin your 2nr/2ar analysis on an issue. I like debaters to be polite and intelligible.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may ask for the evidence. However, it would be much more preferable if a debater (perhaps the 2ar/2nr) would discuss the nuance/detail and why it changes the round rather than having me read the evidence and make my own determination. "Smith in 12 answers this" or "Apply the Smith card here" doesn't really tell me much. If I read a card after the round, I reserve the right to read all of the card--not just what you have highlighted or read into the round.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

 Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, and lament that much of that has apparently died. I'll reward you if you have clear tags that in your speech are differentiated from the evidence body of either the prior or subsequent card and that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating--and I find that such tags are often lacking on evidence for K's. I'll reward you even more if you have enough of an explanation on your analytic that I have time to get the tag down before you move to the next one, and it is clear you have moved to the next tag. Long tags, like long evidence, should be condensed into something concise. As an example, a tag on a block on open evidence reads "Cyber war and our conceptions of it rely on a state of exception. We see them as non-political wars. You can’t see who attacks, and the attackers can’t see what they do. The wars are waged from the shadows. Sanctioned by the law, but carried out beyond the law. " I don't care how you frame it, this is a terrible tag. If you have evidence like this try to make a better tag that actually summarizes the idea (rather than explaining it) and then if the evidence is some sort of professional-obtuse-speak, you might give that "tag" as a nice explanation of what the evidence is going to try to communicate. Hopefully, the evidence is of sufficient quality that it doesn't actually make 6 different points and that you need specifically enumerated. If you rip through 10 great tags with no explanation behind them, I'm likely to miss a number of them and none of them will provide me much weight to use in evaluating the round.

I'm not a fan of K's, but I will vote for them if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it.To that extent, my comments about explanation and tags are highly relevant.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask me.