Alan,+Keith

Debate Judging Philosophy of: Keith Alan Affiliation: Fullerton Union High School, Fullerton, California Sunny Hills High School, Fullerton, California Buena Park Junior High School, Buena Park, California


 * BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE**

I am a practicing litigation attorney in the Los Angeles - Orange County metropolitan area.

I debated for three years in high school in Southeastern Wisconsin from 1977 to 1980. I attended Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, from 1980 to 1984 where my debate professors included Thomas Goodnight and David Zarefsky. I began at NU as a collegiate debater but then worked as an assistant debate coach at Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, for the remainder of my undergraduate studies.

When I use the term “debate” I am referring of course to cross-examination, policy debate – the only “true” form of academic debate, in my opinion.

After graduating from NU in 1984 I was not involved in policy debate again for 24 years, until 2008, when my daughters entered high school and got interested in speech and debate. Therefore I have been judging policy debate once again beginning with the 2008-09 school year to the present. The alternative energy topic that year, by the way, was virtually the same topic, ironically, that I debated in my junior year of high school some 30 years ago. Some things never change.

However one of the major differences between “debate as I knew it” in 1977-1984 and what debate is today is the use of “kritiks”, which I understand were invented and first became popular in the 1990s. I personally am not that impressed with them, unless they are well evidenced and include a good real world alternative rather than simply doing nothing “on principle”.

I am also now involved with debate at the Junior High School level, so I have listed that affiliation, above, as well.

Also, I do not remember ever having had “lay” judges actually judge and decide high school debate rounds when I was a debater or when I was a coach. I personally think it makes absolutely no sense to assign to someone the task of judging a policy debate round who has never actually debated himself or herself (with just one person I know of who would be an exception to this), and never coached a team, and has had little or no experience, training or learning in policy debate. Would you put a “lay” judge on the bench to decide a case in a California Superior Court? Would you select a “lay” surgeon to perform open heart surgery on you? Of course not! How about a “lay” airline pilot? Geez. I think it is really a travesty to have someone judge a debate round who is not even qualified to perform the task performed by those being judged. The rule should be: no one who is not functionally able to switch places with one of the debaters in the round and do at least half as well at him or her should be allowed to judge a debate round.


 * JUDGING PARADIGM**

To me, the decision in a policy debate round is very rarely a subjective thing. I my view, deciding who wins a round is somewhat of a logical, mathematical equation, as I look at my flow at the end of the round.

When I was a debater, it used to anger me to read ballots in which judges offered up their own arguments which were never made in the round, or said they “didn’t buy” some argument that the other side did not effectively counter, or even dropped or conceded. The judge is not one of the debaters in the round. So I judge strictly based upon what the debaters put into the record of the debate round.

I wonder if it might be feasible to institute some sort of appeals process into academic debate – especially in elimination rounds – maybe some sort of “judge deliberation” in 2-1 decisions in which the judges might have a deliberation as a result of which one or more of the ballots might be reversed.

My judging paradigm is somewhat of a hybrid between policy-making and stock issues. However, I leave myself open to deciding the round based upon what the debaters argue should be the standard, the framework, and the paradigm. If neither team does this, I default to my own set of standards, which are still somewhat susceptible to some bending around the edges depending upon the nature and direction of the debate round:

I believe that every stock issue is a voting issue and that the affirmative has the burden of proof and persuasion on each and all of them. However the stock issues are a guide to evaluating which side presents the best policy choice. For example, if there is no inherent barrier to the status quo solving the harms or generating and enacting the affirmative plan, then the best policy choice is to leave the status quo alone to fix the problem and implement the plan.

Topicality is a voting issue. Arguments over definitions, jurisdiction and relevance are among the most important and “real world” in our society. It does not take much in the way of impacts to convince me that T is a voter. For this reason, “kritikal affs” and “performance debates” generally do not do very well in rounds that I judge, when the negative runs a good set of arguments on T. However, in garden-variety rounds, the violation and counter-definition (or counter-interpretation) should be clear and convincing. Don’t presume that it necessarily benefits the negative team to argue T against every affirmative plan, though, because affirmative debaters are just as good at making T arguments as are negative debaters.

I am not all that impressed with topical counterplans because I think the negative concedes the truth of the Resolution in such instances, but I am willing to listen to arguments that I should nevertheless vote negative under such circumstances, as a policy-maker.

Lack of specificity in the affirmative plan bothers me and I have been known on occasion to vote negative on ASPEC. In my opinion, there is even more fertile ground for negative arguments on lack of specification in the whole area of implementation: how, when, where and what – in addition to who. I don’t think the affirmative can, necessarily, simply “fiat” solvency, “fiat” the condition called fro by the Resolution or “fiat” the instantaneous creation of the end result of the plan. Remove all troops from Kuwait, you say? How? Over what period of time? How many troops is that, exactly? From what bases? Is it even possible? All of these may be essential to solvency, depending upon what harms are claimed solved or what advantages are claimed.


 * PREFERENCES /PROCEDURE**

“Tag team” cross-examination is alright with me so long as both teams agree to it. I prefer that debaters face me (and address their arguments, questions and answers to me) rather than to one another.

Speed spreading is alright with me so long as you (1) speak clearly and audibly; (2) well-enunciate your words; (3) do not include any “uhs” and “aahs” -- or keep these glitchy utterances to an absolute minimum) ; and (4) clearly and unambiguously sign post throughout -- and by “sign post” I mean that you also include (in addition to telling me what argument you’re turning to), a micro-pause between tags and authors, dates and the quoted text of the cards you read. The majority of Varsity debaters whom I have come across in the past few years can not (or do not) effectively do these; I would recommend to them that they proceed at about 85% of maximum speed to “be on the safe side” with me.

Some debaters seem to think taking no prep supposedly shows the judge that they consider the other team an easy mark. I am not impressed with debaters who take no prep time. To me, taking no prep time more likely means that I will be hearing the same arguments regardless of what the other side might have argued, that I should not expect anything “on case”, and that there will be very little clash.

I really find it irritating when debaters comment on their opponents or their arguments in ad hominem or disparaging fashion – for example: “Like an idiot he argues ...”; or “She completely blows it when she argues ...”; or “He makes this ridiculous argument that ...” Doing this will lower the speaker points that I award. It also distracts me from the substance of your argument, so don’t think it’s OK to do it in out rounds.

If your argument does not make it to my flow, it does not exist, and I will not “fill in” or rehabilitate my flow by asking for cards and blocks at the end of the round. Doing so would destroy the purpose of having timed speeches (or any speeches, for that matter). However, I often ask to see cards and blocks at the end of the round in order to confirm that I heard what I thought I heard – and sometimes to take down cites for cards whose authenticity I want to confirm on my own later.

Finally, I encourage debaters to voir dire me at the beginning of the debate round.