Phillips,+Les

Type in the content of your new page here JUDGING PHILOSOPHY - LES PHILLIPS - PUBLIC FORUM VERSION created 4/25/16

I have been judging all kinds of debate for many years. Until recently I was identified chiefly as a circuit policy and (to a lesser extent) LD coach. I was on the NFL Executive Council when Public Forum was created as an event; I cofounded and directed Stanford's summer program in PF; I serve on the wording committee. I now coach primarily Public Forum. I teach and coach at The Nueva School in northern California.

Some public forum-specific advisories:

1) If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary. 2) The second-speaking rebuttal does not have to cover everything on both sides of the flow. 3) There is presumption against plans and counterplans, as defined by NSDA rules; but the development of examples of the resolution and nonresolution is essential to meaningful debate. 4) I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't. 5) I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points. 6) Evidence should be presented when requested. Don't take forever. Don't tempt me to restart prep time. Minimize quibbling about what you've been shown or offered. 7) Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact. 8) I hope that I am open to all forms of argument. In particular, Public Forum ought to make room for ethical, Kritikal, and other types of noncalculative, nonquantitative impact calculi.

Ask questions if you're in doubt! Enjoy the round.


 * JUDGING PHILOSOPHY – LES PHILLIPS –---POLICY VERSION revised 1/27/13 (LD version below) **

I have been judging all kinds of debates since the dawn of time. I have heard everything, and I have pretty much voted on everything. Like many judges, I try to be a blank slate; like all judges, I fail to do so. But I do try. I will sit and squirm and worry and look at the flow and read cards and think about them and try to avoid intervening. At various times I have voted for Ayn Rand is our savior, tobacco good, structural inherency must be explicit in 1AC, Albanian socialism, typos in plan text equal negative ballot, scientology-saves-the-world, and (my personal favorite) Reagan-leads. -to-Communism-and-Communism-is good. That said, there are some default positions (soft defaults, obviously, in my case). 1) I think topicality serves an important limiting function. I used to vote on T very frequently; I have done so less often in recent years. Too often the negative wins the violation but doesn’t persuade me that there’s so much abuse that I should pull the trigger. One reason, I suppose, is that I don’t really think the negative is entitled to any ** particular ** ground (just enough ground). I do not default to “competing interpretations.” Similarly, it’s hard to persuade me that any particular counterplan or permutation is so abusive that a team should lose the round (though I might "reject the argument.") Lists of specific cases that are included or excluded and stories about WHY neg doesn't (or does) have sufficient ground are good things.    2) I grimace when you run specification arguments. I have voted on them. But if you have a choice between a specification argument and Ayn Rand good, run Ayn Rand good. 3) I am stingy about new responses in 2AR or, for that matter, 1AR and 2NR. Debaters are often too shy about calling out their opponents on new responses. Don’t be. Dropped arguments carry full weight with me (see “typos in plan text,” above ).   Note also:    1) I love good K debates. (This is what you really wanted to know about, right?) I vote on Kritiks frequently. I am not particularly wedded to the concept of fiat. In my personal and private capacity I am a grumpy, committed democratic socialist who believes that both direct action and radical rethinking are valuable and am very interested in robust discussion of their intersections; smart perms and smart perm defenses will be rewarded. "Reject" can be an acceptable alternative, with the right explanation. I welcome performance debates, although my understanding of performance theory is superficial at best. But most important: make the IMPLICATIONS of your Kritikal position EXTREMELY CLEAR. (In the room? In the debate activity? In the fiat world? More than one of these? Make sure I know.) 2) "Offense/defense," as a template, is overrated. I can be persuaded that a hint of a suggestion of a possibility of a risk is not enough for a negative ballot. "Try or die" is suspect as a mantra. Once my team ran a case that saved ten people. That's all it saved. It didn't link to anything, but I'm not sure I would have voted for it, myself.

3) Make comparisons. Talk about your evidence versus your opponents'. Talk about your world versus your opponents' world. 4) Apparently I have to add this: If you clip cards, you lose with no points, and I will be speaking to your coaches, and you should probably quit the activity.

5) I believe that debate is good. Debate comprises much of my life's work. I regard an excellent debate round as a celebration of intelligence, spirit, and hard work. A really good debate round fills me with wonder and awe; it's like being in a temple. Friendly aggression, amusing sarcasm, and flagrant displays of creativity and confidence are all very welcome; I like a sense of play. Rough or insulting conduct, really bad manners, language which demeans or disrespects individuals or groups -- these are most unwelcome in the temple. Blasphemers and heretics risk the wrath of my terrible swift sword. Enjoy!
 * LINCOLN-DOUGLAS JUDGING PHILOSOPHY Les Phillips (Policy version above)**


 * Revised 1/27/13 **

I have been judging all kinds of debate since the dawn of time – and since the dawn of LD as a national high school event. I have coached many nationally competitive debaters, both policy and LD, including national champions in each. I have been judging as much LD as policy in recent years. I also direct the Public Forum Workshops at Stanford and at the University of Texas.

I try to be a blank slate. (Like all judges, I fail; see “prejudices,” below.) I will tolerate speed, postmodernism, premodernism, and the agglomeration of arguments and approaches we quaintly refer to as “theory.” I am also very glad to hear an older-style LD round (Locke, Mill, Rawls, Sandel, et al.) I will look at evidence or rhetoric after the round, if I think I have to. Here are some prejudices and preferences that may come into play if you fail to cleanly direct and resolve the round:

1) I am happy to agree that theory arguments are bad or good; that the aff. should be responsible for practical applications of the resolution; that the aff. should not be responsible for pracatical applications of the resolution; that the neg must or must not provide an “alternative,” that disads and Kritiks and topicality are legitimate in LD, that resolutional or plan focus are or are not legitimate, etc. What I don’t like is unwarranted or quick //a priori// appeals to “common sense,” “this is supposed to be values debate,” “traditionally . . . " – those won’t get very far.

2) Packaged theory-abuse briefs, dense with unwarranted five-word “standards” and other invidious claims, are an unfortunate trend. Simpler, round-specific abuse stories are preferable. Theory-goo often degenerates into a dismal swamp, ultimately moot, unless you’re quite clear about what you’re going for and why. Too often I am forced to vote on theory that I do not completely understand, am wondering whether anyone in the round completely understands; this makes me sad. I agree that the life of an LD 1AR is treacherous; I do not agree that it is impossible. I do not default to "competing interpretations." At the bottom of my soul, I don't want to vote against a debater on theory unless abuse is clearly shown. (But I have done so many times, see #3 and #8, below.)

3) Dropped arguments carry full weight. Sometimes that’s really unfortunate, but so it goes. I am very stingy on new arguments in rebuttal, especially in 2AR. Debaters should call out shifts and new arguments in 1AR and NR more than they do.

4) Debaters should prove claims that require proof. "Proof" does not always mean quoting statistics or expert opinion, though those have some presumption unless an opponent shows why the cards are poor or mistagged or misapplied (as they often are). Appeals to some notion of “common sense” or “conventional wisdom” invite me to insert my own uncommon or unconventional notions.

5) Framework is very important. Debaters running K or K-ish frameworks should make the role of my ballot **extremely** clear. (Are we in-round out-round pre-"fiat" post-"fiat discursive intellectual endorsement - whichever?). I do vote on Kritik argument fairly often.

6) Cross-ex is important. Good cross-ex is one of the glories of top-flight LD. You can win big points by using it effectively. Using it to demonstrate that your opponent doesn't understand what he's saying can be particularly useful.

8) At different times I have voted for: tobacco is good, affirmative must have a plan, affirmative must not have a plan, Ayn Rand is our Savior, nuclear war is good (and should happen as soon as possible), Albanian socialism, Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is good, scientology-saves-the-world, drumming and dancing trump topicality, and the Kritik of normativity. I disliked all of these positions. Take nothing for granted!

9) It is unwise to claim that "debate is not an educational activity" when your judge is a career debate educator, in classrooms mostly.

10) Friendly aggression, amusing sarcasm, and flagrant displays of talent are all very welcome. Debate comprises much of my life's work. I regard an excellent debate round as a celebration of intelligence, spirit, and hard work. A really good debate round fills me with wonder and awe; it's like being in a temple. Rough or insulting conduct, really bad manners, language which demeans or disrespects individuals or groups -- these are most unwelcome in the temple. Blasphemers and heretics risk the wrath of my terrible swift sword.