Manuel,+Brian

Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School; Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University
 * Brian Manuel**

(High School Constraints - Edgemont & College Prep)

(College Constraints - Stanford, Harvard, and a crew of exceptionally talented debaters I coached while they were in HS)

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016
__**Public Forum Update**__: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

__**NDT/CEDA Update**__: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is a mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any one set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments amongst participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; that the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and using it to get judges who will automatically check in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. Its not about who wrote the best constructives only. Its about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is bmanuel@stanford.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)
The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered.Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone. However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. I think this is a great question and I believe Gabe had an even better response. Therefore, I'll go with his answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era were students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasis the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." **However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must proves their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negatives burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.**

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)
If you love debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!! If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance And you thought you had a sick blog!! Also why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skillz like these and these!! To only be shown up in a video sing off by a 2 year old killing it to Adele Finally, it's not new years yet but we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Suzuki and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012
Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You should have to win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'll assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" __IS NOT__ a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must read a plan or at the very least advocate something on the affirmative - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; its what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - its rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This mean they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your life long friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

__**Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking**__: To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or its won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011
So after talking to Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010
I am Currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full time coach. Debate is my full time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being ran every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

So I guess you’re wondering what has changed with me:

1. **__Depth over Breath__** – I have become more and more favorable to smaller more contained affirmatives and negative positions.

On the aff, this means I’d rather hear 1-2 very large developed advantages than 3-4 (or more) 2 card advantages that makes your 1ac sound more like an “Impact Authors Greatest Hits CD” rather than a well thought out policy proposal. Also I tend to appreciate affirmatives more when they have well warranted internal link claims. Besides this being the primary method for you to defend your aff in contrast to CP’s, it also makes for a much easier time assessing debates as a judge at the end.

On the neg, this means I’d rather hear a small packaged set of arguments rather than 7-8 off case positions that includes more than 1 T violation or procedural arguments and a few contradictory advocacies. Specifically, I want to hear a very engaged case debate, especially on this topic. It’s the first list topic we’ve got to embrace as a high school debate community, which means we should engage in the limited topic areas they allow for us to debate.

Important Note : If you are a team who refuses to engage the case or are hesitant in developing this type of debate throughout the round, then I’d suggest not preferring me. I know for the first tournament, till the topic begins to develop, you may not have your case debates prepared, however, I still believe there should be an attempt made in the 1nc even if that attempt falters and you need to resort to Plan B. However, more times than not in the past, case debates I’ve seen, in over a majority of my debates, have been 1-2 case cards getting read at the bottom of the 1nc that included a bunch of inarticulate babble and I ultimately ended up voting aff in a large majority of these debates.

2. **__Speed v. Clarity__** – I like speed, but I love clarity. If you don’t know what this means then I’d suggest you’ve either made a grave error on your preference sheet or you have already decided this round wasn’t important to you. If you understand this than you know that they can both be consistent with one another and done very well. In way too many debates students sacrifice clarity of evidence for their ability to read one or two more cards. However, I ask those students a question: What does another couple cards matter if the judge doesn’t understand them?? Call me old-fashioned but I still believe this is a communication activity first and should be viewed that way. Yes, it is an extremely hard and difficult communication activity, but that is what separates policy debaters from the rest of the pack in my opinion. Since this is an extremely hard communication activity you should be doing speech drills every night and practicing your blocks and redoing your speeches. This is the type of practice/rehearsal that is needed to make speed compliment clarity, etc. These are the types of practices that differentiate the top ten speakers from the 200 odd students competing at any given tournament.


 * Important Note** : In each debate I judge, I will say clear 3 times for each debater. If after 3 times you don’t appropriately adjust your rate of speech to increase clarity, I will immediately stop flowing and continue doing things I need to get done till the next speaker begins. As you can imagine if this happens to you in a given debate, it puts you at a pretty large disadvantage. However, I think the burden is on the student in these situations and not the judge. Our duty is to critique your debate and decide on a winner/loser. We shouldn’t also have to decipher and strain ourselves to make out what you’re saying or even better yet, feel bad for missing an argument that was incoherent in the debate when it ends up meaning a win/loss at the end.

3. **__Argumentation__** – With all being said above, I have become much more open to all forms of argumentation. I guess you can thank my friends from the critical side of debate land for this influence. However, if this draws some slack then please spare them at the same time. A few caveats to this openness:


 * Topicality/Spec Arguments** – It’s always a voting issue and I normally default to a specific in round abuse claim rather than just pure offense/defense. This being said, its all debate-able. As far as ASPEC/OSPEC/Etc – I think these for the most part are stupid and not really arguments. Yes, I believe teams should specify their agent, but likewise, I believe it’s the negative teams burden to ask them who does their plan. Two caveats:

1. Aff says USFG and Neg doesn’t ask who the affirmative actor is during the CX but proceeds to read ASPEC. The only answer the Aff needs to make in these situations is CX checks, because I believe all points of questioning the merits and internal workings of a proposal stem from who enacts that policy. If they don’t ask then they have no point of reference for the rest of CX.

2. Neg asks in CX who the actor is and Aff responds with we’ll defend the entirety of the USFG or just doesn’t spec. Then I think the Neg should pretty easily be able to win why Agent Specification is good or just PIC out of one of the agents of the USFG (they said they’ll defend the entirety of USFG action) and then win a net benefit to it.


 * Critical Argumentation** – I have started to believe the aff must defend the world they’d like to operate within. The negative gets to test this world through critical argumentation if they choose. Even though I’ve become more open to this I still tend to view Kritik alternatives as overly simplified with no way to solve the affirmative advantages. I also tend to believe due to this oversimplification of alternatives that affirmatives have gotten away with murder answering these arguments, especially in regards to the permutation. Remember that permutations need to be net beneficial for me to consider them, this normally implies being able to solve the aff but I need to hear the affirmative explain why the alt doesn’t solve and why only the permutation can overcome the alt and also access the case. For the negative, spend some time before the debates shaping link argument specific to the advantages and lines of argumentation the affirmative is progressing throughout the debate. This is where I’m more than likely easily sold as a judge. If you want me voting on your K then this is a must in the debate. The more generic the negative is the more leeway I normally give the affirmative in answering it.


 * DA’s and more specifically the Politics DA** – I understand now why people are considered K-hacks, who aren’t actually hacks, always roll their eyes when referred to as that. I feel that within the debate community many teams view me as this judge who hacks for the Politics DA. This is wrong. If anything, I vote more times for the affirmative on analytic arguments or generic takeouts to the Politics DA. I majored in Political Science in school, work actively on political campaigns at home, cut politics cards weekly for my teams, and pretty much have lived most of my life in the shadow of a very politically active city. However, this doesn’t mean that I want you to read this argument every debate just to pander to me. Remember, at the same time you think the Politics DA is an automatic ballot in front of me, you should ask yourself the following questions: Have I put in a good amount of time researching/learning this argument? Do I know the current political landscape? Do I understand how this DA interacts with other political events occurring at the same time? If you can answer all these questions in the affirmative then YES, I encourage you to read the politics DA. The flip side to this is that I am on one knee begging those of you who don’t normally go for the Politics DA to shelve it in front of me, I promise you that whatever you normally do will be better in front of me than going for the Politics DA.


 * Important Note : Political Theory Arguments (ie. Political Capital, Horsetrading, etc) are all developed theories that mean something. I’m going to start holding teams to a higher threshold, when reading the politics disad, to have to win these theoretical arguments rather than just assuming that you are right and asserting it in the debate. Especially given certain new political contexts, a lot of these terms have changed from when they were originally written in the early 90’s during the Clinton Administration and before. Also on the negative, you should be ready to defend the political specificity of your scenario within the context of the broader agenda. This means the common negative answer that we have “issue specific uniqueness” isn’t an answer to general takeouts for political capital, etc. It really means multiple things might be able to get done at the same time. Which tends to destroy your ability to win your DA. Generic takeouts are an affirmatives best friend. Use them!! **


 * As for other DA’s – they are plenty of them and the literature for a reduction of military presence effecting much of the geopolitical context of the world is probably a much better issue to engage the other team on. Usually topic specific DA’s are much better researched and understood, this correlates to better points and wins. **


 * Counterplans – I like them; but only when well researched. A few caveats that will be a better test for if you want me or not in the back of the room. **

- C**onsult CP’s – I don’t really like them, but have voted on them a lot. The reason for this is lack of aff substance to answer them. On that note: **


 * A. Consult ISN’T Normal Means – I can’t stress this enough. You’re affirmative is done unilaterally. It doesn’t include the magical world of the negative consultation cp that includes a veto by the consulted country over whether or not to do your plan. Also if you are aff – please do not read consultation is normal means and then read impact turns to Consultation is bad. This is an automatic loss – since I think a smart neg will just concede out that Consultation is normal means and that the aff also said it was bad. **


 * B. What is Genuine Binding Consultation ? – I think this term is just something negatives have added to their consult CP’s to make them competitive with the aff. However, I have yet to see an overwhelming amount of literature on this “binding” mechanism. I don’t think any authors/analysts write about the US giving a veto power to another country over their domestic or foreign policies, probably because of its unrealistic nature. To this extent since it is primarily made up, I think affs should then use the power of the permutation to exploit this and prove that at best the permutation still solves the net benefit and the negative can’t win a reason “binding” is necessary. **


 * C. Read Offense – not Consultation Bad, but rather find certain conditions consulted countries would want from the US in return for the plan and then impact turn with those conditions being bad. Most consult teams will bind themselves to any modifications the consulted country wants we’ll abide by. This is where the CP is the weakest and I think for this year there is a good set of conditions NATO, Japan, ASEAN, or whoever would like before we shifted military strategy on them. **

- **Conditions CP’s – for this topic I think they are great. I think any lay person would wonder why we would just unilaterally withdrawal or reduce our military presence somewhere without first making sure we got some sort of reciprocal security guarantee carried out to protect our interests along with our allies in the region. To this end, please engage affirmatives with these. I do believe the condition should be specific to the topic country and that you should have a very well articulated net benefit to the condition. **

- **Advantage CP’s – also are very strategic because they are meant to test the internal links to the affirmative and as I stated above I believe it’s the affirmatives job to develop these very well in the 1ac. If they don’t, they should be punished and lose because it allows the negative an easy road to CP out of their advantage(s). This strategy is very strong when compiled with offense arguments v. the advantages that the CP doesn’t solve for. This is the sort of small compact strategy I look forward to seeing this year. **

- **Agent CP’s – In all honesty, I’ve thought about this a lot in terms of the Military Presence topic. I finally decided this probably is relevant to this years topic. I think all affirmatives should specify their agent, so therefore I believe after this process is completed the negative should be able to counter plan with alternate agents. However, I do believe that affirmatives that tread away from using the Executive are in a grey area on topicality under “reduce presence”. **

Theory** – these arguments I can’t say I admire too much or tend to want to have to evaluate a debate on. I guess over the years I’ve dealt with these theory issues by forcing myself to do more and more research so I don’t have to depend on it. This doesn’t mean I don’t vote on theory, I just place a much higher threshold for voting on theoretical objections. I think the affirmative/negative engaging in a theory debate has the highest likelihood of winning my ballot when they tailor specific theoretical objections to the debate at hand, instead of just blazing through their blocks. Also, to win a theory debate in front of me you need to do more than just read your blocks and create 2 ships passing in the night. The main reason a team fails to go all-in on theory is because they don’t quite close the doors to why their opponent should lose the debate instead of the judge just throwing out the argument. **


 * In terms of specifics – I find conditionality to be good and PICs to be better. You’re best bet for wins on theory are debating multiple conditional contradictory worlds or some abuse of fiat by the negative (international, private actor, object, etc).**


 * 4. __Bad Arguments__** -** I had to borrow this next section dedicated to bad arguments straight from one of my best friends in the activity, Bill Batterman. With the exception of the Conditions CP (which is mainly favorable for this year to me) I agree on the rest wholeheartedly.

In the past, I have provided a lengthy issue-by-issue breakdown of my predispositions. The more I judge and the more I coach, however, I have found that these specific diatribes we outline in our judging philosophies are mostly useless when filling out preference sheets and coaching teams before rounds.

Instead, I have compiled a list of bad arguments that I despise to varying degrees. If one of these arguments constitutes your “A strat,” you should probably find something else to say or pref me accordingly. While I have voted on most all of these arguments and will probably continue to do so in the future, they are bad arguments and I will do everything I can to avoid rewarding you for making them. There are other arguments I think are bad, obviously… ask me if you’re not sure.

The bottom line is that debate should be hard and hard work should be rewarded; if your idea of doing work is cutting some "Japan says yes" cards or writing some new specification blocks, please strike me.
 * Topicality—“should is the past tense of shall" (it’s not)
 * “Topicality is a reverse voting issue” (this might be the worst argument ever) – (B.Manuel Note: This might actually make you lose .5 speaker points)
 * Counter-interpretation: Only our case is topical (false)
 * Cheap Shot Theory Arguments (I can’t define it, but I know it when I hear it)
 * Theory counter-interpretation: we only get to cheat in the specific way that we're cheating, solves your offense (false)
 * All Words (they don't have the entire resolution in their plan text so they lose, judge)
 * Over-Specification (if the aff has no defense of their agent, use that to your advantage and stop whining)
 * Agent Specification (ask in cross-ex; literature is the litmus test)
 * XYZ Specification (country specification, for example, or funding specification… ridiculously dumb)
 * Plan-Contingent aka Cheating Counterplans (consultation, referendums, etc.)
 * Process aka Cheating Counterplans (veto cheato, sunset provision, pocket passage, etc.)
 * Delay Counterplans (also cheating)
 * Wipeout (this isn’t cheating, but it shouldn’t be hard to answer; same goes for Spark, Caldwell, etc.)
 * Links of Omission (“the aff didn’t talk about X, so they should lose”… dumb)
 * Time Cube, Ashtar, Hyperspace, etc. (remember what I said about evidence quality?)

I will continue to add to this list over time. You can certainly go for one of these arguments in front of me, and I might even vote for you, but your speaker points will not be very high (a perfectly-extended “should is the past tense of shall” 2NR will receive 27 points). Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, but don’t expect me to enjoy it.

5. **__Speaker Points__** : (Based on 30 Point Scale) – Im still adjusting my scale for 100 Pts.

I have reevaluated my point scale a little bit over the years. I feel that I am in the middle range of most judges when it comes to assigning speaker points. For the 2010-2011 season I will assign speaker points based on the following scale:


 * __30__** – Hands down best speech I will see in a season, if not my whole career. I don’t believe I’ve ever given a 30 in my 10-year judging career.


 * __29.5__** – One of the best speeches I’ll see throughout the year.


 * __29__** – Excellent speaker – might be top 10 speaker at the tournament.


 * __28.5__** - Not as good as above but still pretty good. 11-20 speaker at the tournament


 * __28__** – slightly above average. Speaker shows mastery of skills but lacks execution. Teams with 28’s will normally be participating in break rounds at tournaments.


 * __27.5__** – Average speaker – understands all major concepts of debate and can carry their weight but lacks major characteristics of being a top 20 speaker.


 * __27__** – Below average performance – Understands basic concepts but has poor strategic sense and lacks big picture thinking necessary to win debates.


 * __26.5-25__** – Extremely below average. This would be comparable to a failing grade in school. The debater must work significantly on understanding better the basic concepts & speaking skills in debate. These students need significant improvement to advance to the next level. At a minimum debaters in this category must fully participate in the debate (this means you give both speeches and both ask & answer CX questions.)


 * __24.5 or Lower__** – This category is reserved for **__ethical violations/cheating/discriminatory or racist language/insulting behavior during the round__** __.__ Also included in this category are students who more or less aren’t looking to get better or advance in the activity.

I'd honestly say most of my points distributed in any given year fall between 27.5 and 28. I also judge a lot of debates in a given year (national, regional, local)

Important Note – I reserve the right to give you __ZERO__ speaker points for any of the above bolded violations during the debate, without warning or discussion.

6. **__Paperless Debate__** – I encourage its use and I coach multiple teams who prefer it over paper. However, when judging I have a few ground rules for prep time/transferring etc:


 * A.** **Prep Time** **–** it ends for the team giving the speech once they have saved the speeches to their flash drives. If the other team would like the evidence flashed to them prior to the speech beginning then the opposing team will use their prep time for that. Getting to possess and view evidence, especially before the speech begins, is a privilege and not a right as some teams see it. Its because of the privelege part of this which makes me believe that it’s a gift to get the evidence and therefore constitutes your use of prep time to set it up. A papered team doesn’t give all their evidence to the other team prior to speaking, so this is an unfair burden to debating a paperless team that needs to be counterbalanced.


 * B. Tech Errors** **–** there is a science to debating paperless. Most teams have worked tirelessly to learn and perfect the science; other teams have chosen not to do the same. As far as tech errors go, its up to my discretion to whether prep time will be taken. This means that if a team doesn’t have a viewing laptop, has a usb device that is corrupted or won’t work with others machines, or just can’t get a document to work etc and is stuck on how to fix it, they will need to take prep time. However, if it’s a team who is following all the proper paperless etiquette and you have a random error occur, you can use time without prep to fix this error. I’m instituting this system to reward hardworking paperless teams in their transition to paperless and to penalize teams trying to make the leap without putting in the same painstaking effort.


 * C.** **Judge Swapping of evidence** **–** I am requiring all teams who debate paperless in front of me to jump me the speech prior to starting so I can have to reference later in the debate. With paperless teams today reading more and more evidence and having more included in their speech doc that they don’t read. I feel that the only way to check this is to be able to line up your flow to their speech doc. Also, its easier for me to review pieces of evidence after the debate if I have all the speeches rights in front of me.


 * D.** **More Specific Questions**** – Please Just Ask!!

If there are any other questions you have please ask before the debate. However, we as coaches spend time prior to tournaments writing these philosophies so you can read them prior to debating. If you walk in and expect me to repeat this all over again right before a debate, keep dreaming. I will answer specific questions about my philosophy that are aimed at gaining more information from me. Feel free to contact me outside of debate for anything of relevance or to clear things up.

**Pre 2008 Season:**
My feelings about judging debates are pretty simple. I will not interject my own opinions about arguments into the debate. Feel free to run whatever you'd like, and I will give it an impartial viewing. I will, however, flag new 2ar arguments; I feel that there is only so much that can be allowed in the 2ar that hasn't been said early in the round.

Topicality- is always a voting issue. I believe that Topicality comes before everything in debate. If left to intervene, I tend to vote that way first. Interpretations should be realistic and grounded in the literature. I think out debating a team on Topicality isnt as beneficial as being on the right side of a ground/abuse debate. I usually err affirmative when deciding these debates and that should be taken into account when debating in front of me.

Counterplans- I think they are great to judge the desirability of the affirmative plan. I believe that it is the affirmatives burden to prove that their plan is better than the status quo and any and all competitive policy options. Conditionality is always good, but I haven't heard many good theory debates; that does Not mean that I won't vote on why theory issues are "bad" or "good". I will assume that presumption on these issues lies with the negative. I truly enjoy listening to PICS, as I think they are the strategic way to run counterplans. I don't like Consult CPs, as most negatives are unable to prove competitiveness. However, affirmatives rarely make that argument, so feel free to run Consult CPs.

SUMMARY: CPs are only good if they are obviously competitive. If you go for theory, do it well. PICs are good, Consult CPs at your own risk.

DA's- Love them. I believe they must be unique and have a SPECIFIC link. I am not interested in hearing DA's that have general foreign aid links. At this level of debate - links that specific to affirmatives should be a priority in front of me. Running generic link stories open you up for numerous cheap shot answers on the uniqueness level, such as Aid Now and Influence Now. I also believe that against military affirmatives more specifically that the link evidence should assume that attitude of the Congress post Iraq War - so that they are more based in the current political atmosphere. For the aff I am also of the school of thought that uniqueness overwhelms the link answers only destroy the uniqueness for your link turns while still giving them uniqueness for their DA. I tend to be more interested in politics debates than most people. Every week I tend to have the responsibility of cutting the politics updates for my team so I am up on nearly every issue. This could be detrimental since I know what is going on it is a lot harder to win with some of the link stories that teams try to run. Basically I can smell the bullshit.

CRITIQUES- There must be a reason to reject the affirmative. Negatives can't simply say that they did something good; they must prove the affirmative definitively prohibits that from occurring. Also you must prove that the impacts of the criticism outweigh the impacts of the case. Even though you inform me that plan never passes it still doesn't make the good things of the case disappear. I always believe even in the world simulations - the affirmative usually gets to weigh the case at all time. When running a criticism you should give the affirmative the benefit that they at least get the beneficial result they want. I think the more grounded your link arguments are within the affirmative are better to make your point than general states/development link categories that are resolutionally bound. Finally, I believe all criticisms should have some sort of stable alternative, not necessarily that it is a policy option, but something concrete enough for an affirmative to be able to garner offense against. If they so choose to. I have found myself judging a lot of critical debates this year and tend to vote negative in these debates more due to lack of affirmative refutation against these arguments rather than the strength of the negative position itself.

Impact Analysis - Should start early and often. I believe the affirmative should start their impact analysis in the 2AC describing how the case impacts outweigh DA's for X reason. The negative should start their analysis in the 2NC. It should be included in an overview somewhere. Many times I have seen teams leave it till they get to the impact level of the argument and then brush over it or never cover it. As you wait longer in the round to start your impact analysis the less weight I begin to give to your arguments when I'm making my decision. If your waiting till the 2AR to start I would suggest not doing it since maybe you might get me to think you said something, but if you make a big deal about it in the 2AR I will tend to recognize that and will not evaluate it. A side note on this - more and more I have tended to notice that impact comparisons within the debate are very superficial in terms of magnitude, timeframe, probability...these words mean nothing to me. I'd like to hear in depth discussions of how impacts interact with each other in debates. Every time a neg wins a DA they assume that the Aff has gone away...this is not true. I'd like to hear a lot more "even if" statements than statements of fact on the impact level. I'd advise you to assume a world that the aff/neg will win a minimal risk of their impact and start the debate there than to start the impact debate thinking it exists as all or nothing.

Miscellaneous- I am a very laid back judge. I will read very limited evidence in the round. I tend to base my decisions heavily on argument construction based on the debate in front of me, rather than the argumentation specific pieces of evidence make for you. I know I don't seem to go with the current trend in debate, which is to read as much evidence as possible and just let the judges sort it out afterwards. I'm pretty meticulous on the arguments I call for and mainly they are asked for to allow me to make distinctions between competing claims. Besides that I enjoy humor, I think with the stress that goes on during a tournament their needs to be some laughter in the rounds to release some of that tension. For the most part I want all the debaters to have fun and enjoy their debating experience. I expect the highest level of professionalism in debates while at the same time trying to stay relaxed. Its the Tournament of Champions and I expect nothing but the highest level of competition. Good Luck!