Hoffert,+Brent

Judge affiliated with Southern Lehigh


 * General Approach**

The most important thing to keep in mind is I only judge a handful of circuit L-D tournaments each year, and I do not read up on debate-specific literature. Still, I competed in L-D (and also PF) for 4 years, and as of 2016 I've judged L-D for 7 years. What I'm trying to say is that I'm very experienced with L-D, but I'm not always up on the latest trends and theory. If you run a particular framework or case structure, I do not know how I'm "supposed" to judge it. Therefore, to keep things fair, I judge tabula rasa—you can run anything and I will listen to your argumentation, but your argumentation must explain and justify exactly why I should accept/reject whatever you're talking about.

Now, just because I judge tabula rasa doesn't mean I'll blindly accept an argument I know to be false. I will only judge you based on the arguments, facts and statistics that are introduced during the round, but I'm a human who's able to reason about what you're saying, and sometimes I'm already familiar with your warrants. I try to be as fair as possible about this: you're free to creatively interpret or extrapolate from your warrants, but I will not accept a blatant *mis*interpretation. Sometimes these misinterpretations happen by accident, and this is very unfortunate because the debater will go the entire round without realizing that they're wasting time arguing an interpretation of a warrant I've already rejected. I don't want to give the impression that I come into a debate round with tons of preconceptions about "right" and "wrong" and "correctness"; I don't. I'm just saying that I'll quickly accept interpretations of warrants I believe to be correct, but I'm very slow to accept ones I believe to be incorrect.


 * Some Specifics**

Resolutionality - I believe strongly in interpreting the resolution the way it was meant to be interpreted. I am not persuaded by arguments that abuse dictionary definitions to push narrow interpretations of the resolution. I also believe that the judge's role is to accept or reject the *resolution* based on the arguments provided; i.e., this is not policy debate, and I am not accepting one *case* over the other. Therefore, kritiks on the resolution (or status quo) are perfectly acceptable, but kritiks on the opponent's case must somehow show that the opponent's case, as kritiked, is a direct consequence of accepting/rejecting the resolution. In general, all arguments should be directly linked back through to the resolution.

Extensions - I flow. I do not "keep score"; I evaluate the round based on the impacts and voters that still stand at the end of the round, not based on *how many* points got extended. To extend an argument, you must at a minimum restate the argument (not just its signpost, although you should signpost too) and restate the impact of the argument. Whether or not you actually say the word "extend" is irrelevant to me.

Drops and Turns - An opponent only "drops" an argument if they completely fail to address it. Please do not say your opponent dropped an argument just because their rebuttal was short or weak. Any drops you call out must be impacted (although you may simply reiterate the impact of your original argument if you feel that's enough). A "turn" is when an opponent's arguments contain a contradiction, either implicitly (their argument goes against their affirmative/negative stance) or explicitly (their argument contradicts another one they've made). A debater may kick out of a double-turn by dropped one of the arguments. Turns must be impacted just like drops. Please, please do not call something a "turn" just because you feel you have a strong rebuttal to it or whatever. Competitors who insist on "turning" the opponent's case a dozen times per round put me in a bad mood.

Framework - You do not need a V/VC, but you do need to tell me at some point how I'm supposed to weigh the round. You need to do this early on so that your opponent has time to rebut your weighing mechanism. Winning the framework debate does not on its own win you the round or give you an advantage, because the framework is nothing but a way to weigh the rest of the arguments made.

Speed - I'm perfectly fine with significant speed. However, many competitors confuse "speed" with "rapid stuttering." If you cannot speak quickly without tripping over your words, I highly recommend that you slow down. The faster you speak, the more clear you need to be. If I can't follow your logic because you stuttered your way through all of your signposts and impacts, then tough cookies. If your speaking is naturally unclear for any reason, then you should not be speeding.


 * Misc. Stuff You Don't Need to Read**

Signposting and Cards - Please do not use the tags of your cards as signposts for your arguments; warrants can have implications beyond the original contention they're linked to, and arguments do not fall simply because the warrant is challenged. Therefore, please use actual signposts as your primary method of organizing your speeches—not the tags of your cards.

Oral Critques/Disclosure - Unless the tournament specifically tells judges otherwise, I do not disclose the winner of the round. If asked to give an oral critique when I am not disclosing, I will only address style issues. This means that I tend to give very unhelpful oral critiques and I always sound like I'm nitpicking.

Evidence - I will not read your evidence before, during, or after the round, unless someone claims evidence was falsified. You are of course free to share evidence amongst yourselves, but I do not require it.

Timing - If your timer makes a loud, obnoxious sound when time is up, do not use it to time your opponent.