Ritter,+Michael

** II. Default Rules. ** When a tournament’s rules provide for a judge’s discretion, I apply the following rules as defaults unless the debaters argue I should apply and follow a different rule. By “argue” in this context, I mean clearly present, upon the first reasonable opportunity to do so, a different rule and present some logically-reasoned basis for why I should apply that different rule. If one of the following default rules is argued, then the burden lies on the side arguing in favor of the different rule to present the proposed rule and logically-reasoned basis for why I should apply that rule. // A. Burdens. // The affirmative has the burden to prove why the resolution is true or, in other words, to present a reason why the resolution is true. If the affirmative satisfies this burden, then I consider the affirmative to have done the “better debating” and to have “won” the round unless the negative demonstrates a greater reason or more reasons why the resolution is false than the affirmative’s reason(s) the resolution is true. If so, or if the affirmative has not met its burden to present a reason why the resolution is true, then I consider the negative to have done the “better debating” and to have “won” the round. // B. Form. // Unless the resolution provides otherwise, the debaters may present reasons the resolution is true or false in any form: such as arguments by definition, by moral theory, or by policy impacts. // C. Priority. // I prioritize the reasons in the order listed in II.B. For example, if the negative wins the resolution is false by definition, and the affirmative wins a moral theory why the resolution is true, then the negative will win. I understand that policy impacts usually assume a particular moral theory, and unless the debaters argue a particular moral theory applies, I default to considering policy impacts. // D. Weighing. // Unless the debaters make arguments to weigh their arguments against the arguments of the other side, I will give each independently isolated argument an equal value of one point. In the absence of the debaters weighing arguments, whoever has the most points wins on the argument’s respective level (e.g. policy/theory/critical level). I apply this standard for competing impacts, moral theories, definitional arguments, theory arguments, evidence indicts, etc. When both sides make comparative arguments, I exercise my reasonable judgment in resolving the contested issue. // E. Topicality. // Topicality is presumed unless challenged. To “challenge” topicality requires a debater to present (a) an interpretation of a word or phrase in the topic (b) one or more reasons why that interpretation aids in construing the resolution and (c) why the other side violates the interpretation. I evaluate competing interpretations and do not require in-round abuse. ** III. Mandatory Rules **. When a tournament’s rules provide for a judge’s discretion, I apply the following mandatory rules. Unlike the default rules, the following rules are not subject to argument by the debaters. // A. Counterplans //. All counterplans are unconditional and offered in lieu of defending the status quo, regardless of whether the counterplan is formally extended. This presumption may be overcome only if the debater, during the speech in which the counterplan is presented:  (1) clearly states the status of the counterplan (conditional, dispositional, etc.);   (2) explicitly defines what the status means in a way that explains the circumstances, if any, under which the team can revert to advocating the status quo;   (3) provides three distinct, independently isolated reasons justifying the status as it has been defined; and   (4) does (1) through (3) without spreading or rapid-fire delivery. I will not consider any additional reasons provided. If a debater presents more than three reasons, I will consider the first three reasons only. For purposes of rule III.A, no part of cross-examination counts as “during the speech.” Rebutting this presumption does not preclude the opposing side from arguing and winning a theoretical position that the non-unconditional counterplan is illegitimate. // B. Theory //. Theory is not a reason to reject the opposing team. If theory is won, then I will reject any and all arguments the opponent makes that  (1) is available to the opponent because of the theory violation; and   (2) would result in in-round ground loss to the side that has won the theory argument. // C. Critical Arguments/Kritiks //. Critical arguments or kritiks presented by either side are presumed to be non-arguments and will not be considered unless the debater who introduces the critical argument or kritik, during the speech in which the debater introduces the critical argument or kritik:  (1) provides a clear, concise, and non-circular definition of the criticized concept or ideology, which includes, but is not limited to, any those ending with suffix “ism” and terms of art used by a particular author, (for purposes of Rule III.C.1, a “definition” does not include the impacts or implications of the criticized concept or ideology);   (2) clearly identifies all ways the resolution or the other side’s speeches and/or conduct, fall within or satisfy the definition required by (1); and   (3) does (1) and (2) without spreading or rapid-fire delivery. For purposes of Rule III.C, a “critical argument or kritik” is any argument that is related to either the words or conduct of the other side or the harms or benefits of using the ballot to vote. For an explanation of the pedagogical basis supporting this rule, see generally Michael J. Ritter, //Debater-Corporations & the Capitalism of Competitive Interscholastic Programs: A Swift// //Proposal//, 3:1 Nat'l J. Speech & Debate 8 (2015). // D. Last Speeches //. I will not consider an argument in evaluating the debate unless the argument, including the claim and support, was both previously made and reiterated/extended in the last speech. For purposes of this rule, a “last speech” is the speech that the debate format provides an opportunity for a side to speak. However, in high school Lincoln-Douglas debate, I will consider an affirmative debater to have “reiterated/extended in the last speech” if the argument was reiterated/extended the first rebuttal and reiterated/extended the argument by reference in the second rebuttal. Also, plan texts read during a speech are presumed to be reiterated/extended in the last speech. // E. Arguments Beyond Time //. Unless the organization’s rules provide a mandatory grace period, any part of any argument beyond the time allotted by the rules will not be considered. ** IV. Preferences & Speaker Points. ** I give higher speaker points to competitors who are clear, persuasive, competent, respectful, and make attempts to adapt to my paradigm. Speaker points are deducted for (A) lack of clarity in speaking or in the form or substance of arguments; (B) rudeness; (C) prep stealing, whether intentional or unintentional; (D) evasiveness during cross-examination; (E) presenting points in forms other than a spoken argument by a debater; and (F) wasting time.
 * I. Tournament Rules. ** If I am judging, I have either contracted or otherwise agreed with the tournament host to decide a debate round according to the tournament’s rules. //See// Michael J. Ritter, //“Don’t Threaten to Sue Your Judge”: An Overview of the Legal Obligations of Judges, Schools & Organizations//, 3:1 Nat’l J. Speech & Debate, at 12-13 (2014). Tournaments that are sanctioned by particular speech and debate organizations, such as the National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA), the Texas Forensics Association (TFA), the University Interscholastic League (UIL), or the Tournament of Champions (TOC), must follow those organizations’ rules and, thus, unless I have been instructed otherwise by a tournament official, I must, too. I suggest that debaters be familiar with those rules; I must apply them even if debaters do not argue them in a round or, alternatively, argue and win they should not apply.