Trigaux,+David

David Trigaux Program Director of the Washington Urban Debate League

I am a former high school and college debater and active coach that actively does a lot of research about each year's topic. I haven't gotten to judge a ton of rounds since working at the WUDL (I have to run most of our local tournaments), but have judged a lot of regional and national circuit rounds over the last 10 years. I have previously coached at all levels--small teams focused on local competition and TOC level national circuit teams.
 * Overview:**

Currently, I work with more than 40 teams each year, ranging from middle school students learning to read and speak in public to competitive varsity teams. I am familiar with a wide array of literature, reading arguments ranging from Heg. Good to Affirmatives without plan texts and narratives as a competitor. I’ve been told that I am a very responsive judge, so looking up will probably help you. I can handle reasonable speed, though it seems to be slipping a bit.

The things you are probably looking for:
 * I have a high threshold on theory, and an not often persuaded by "potential abuse"
 * I am comfortable with traditional policy arguments and with the K. I am interested in, but haven't judged many true performance teams.
 * I live in Washington D.C. within walking distance of the House of Representatives and worked as a political consultant for years. While the government has a spotty track-record on many issues, I find __generic__ "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and can make nuanced, specific claims if you are willing to do the research

The more I coach and work with the WUDL, the more I treat debate as an educational activity and less as a competitive sport. I reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research __(Read: Not Open Ev Downloads),__ and will give high speaker points to folks putting in a lot of work, even in defeat. This usually manifests in well written, creative affirmative cases, aff specific case debate and DAs, smart CPs and T violations, and specific K links.

1. If you can't share evidence quickly, you shouldn't be debating on a laptop. 2. If you don't have a way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, etc.), you will automatically lose in front of me.
 * Notes About Technology:** I am a grumpy old man when it comes to technology and debate. I was one of the last college debaters to still use paper, and most of my teams still debate on paper.

My old partner used to say that my judging philosophy was “don’t do stupid shit,” and I think that still holds true. Above all, be personable, and remember this is an educational activity. If I missed something you find pertinent, please don’t hesitate to ask.


 * The Details:**

My Policy Debate Philosophy was mostly written by Aaron Torop, my former student at SPHS and colleague at the Washington UDL.

__**Specifics(Meta)**__


 * 1) ** Speed ** --I’ll give better speaks to a debater who is clear, and isn’t monotonous. I haven't judged a lot of truly elite spreading in the last three years, so please be extra clear and punch your tags
 * 2) ** Flow ** --I don’t flow author names on purpose. If you shadow extend “extend my smith evidence” and expect me to do anything with that phrase, I won’t. (Note--this is true for varsity rounds. In novice rounds I will be much more lenient.)
 * 3) ** Evidence ** --I often see debaters letting evidence getting in the way of producing quality argumentation. Arguments should be made with evidence to support and prove their point, provide warrants, etc. Reading a string of cards isn’t making an argument. Lots of high-quality evidence is the mark of a good, well-prepared team. However, a good analytic that passes the gut check will tear apart a facade of cards if it is warranted and reasonable. I don’t like calling for evidence, but I will if there seems to be a disagreement about what an author said

__**Pet Peeves**__
 * 1) ** D Rules ** --No such thing, stop looking for a cheap way out. Ex “Violating the constitution is a moral side constraint," If you go for this, I will chuckle
 * 2) ** Douchebags ** --I am very flexible with speaker points, rewarding good research, wit and humor highly, and am extremely willing to nuke your speaker points if you are rude, demeaning, etc. I once gave a debater a single speaker point for being racist and mocking his opponents for their limited English language skills (non-native speakers doing their best).
 * 3) ** Theory Hacks ** --See the section on theory if you are concerned.
 * 4) ** Under views ** --These are stupid, and I likely won’t know where to flow them/bother to do so.


 * Specifics (By Argument Type)**
 * 1) **The Disadvantage:** I like the disadvantage, and think that too many debates lack a DA in the 1NC. Topic specific or Aff specific DAs are the sign of a well researched and prepared team.
 * 2) **Politics DA**: I am also a big fan of the politics DA. I live in Washington D.C., have a M.A. in Political Science, and used to work on the Hill. I read Politico and The Hill daily, and nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario many weekends. Do your research!
 * 3) Update: I have seen so many non-unique, terrible camp DAs. It really hurts my soul and your speaker points. Please bother to do some research, or at least updates.
 * 4) **The Counterplan:** I like a substantive counterplan debate. I prefer topic specific CPs, if not Aff specific CPs, but well written generics like Courts can be very applicable on certain topics. I find many debaters are shady about the net benefit linking to the CP but not the Plan.
 * 5) **Counterplan Theory:** I ran some conditions CPs in my time, love their strategic value, and am not entirely convinced of their legitimacy. If the condition/consultation/whatever is substantial AND specifically suggested on the issue in question by a strong author, I’m pretty sold. Discussing the legitimacy and real-world likelihood of the condition is a necessary component to win a theory debate here, (former political consultant) rather than spewing a block written at camp in the 1970s by your coach's dad.
 * 6) **PIC**: I like PICs that are substantial and suggested by the literature, or at least make common sense. Substantive PICs make me happy, and encourage the Affirmative to run write their plan text carefully, defending only what they have to. Topic specific word PICs have their uses, especially against critical affirmatives. The smaller the PIC, or the more generic, the more frustrated I will become.
 * 7) **Topicality**--I used to hate Topicality, and can only remember going for Topicality once as a competitor. As a coach, I am beginning to embrace it as both a defense against unpredictable/untopical cases, and as a strategic tool to get concessions elsewhere. I have some familiarity with Ks/DAs to T. Please prove abuse. Predictability/Resolutionality is an important part of T debates that I find gets ignored. If you are going to go for it, go all in. Slow down a little bit in your 2R and get in detail, don’t bury me in meaningless standards.
 * 8) **Case**--I like case debates, and see this as another sign of actually doing research. Please impress me. As a debater, I was an impact turn hack, but as a coach, I am doing a lot more solvency work. Please read some offense: many of my students will read great solvency attacks and win that the case is 99% likely to fail, but lose the debate on "why not try" arguments.
 * 9) **Impact Framing:** I find it very under explained in clash of civilization debates, encouraging judge intervention. I will default to Util/consequentialism, but am very open to other frameworks. I often take speaker points off for clash of civ. debates without impact framing debates.
 * 10) **Role of the Ballot:** I default to serving as a policymaker, but will embrace being an educator, philosopher, or whatever else you have in mind for my role in the round if you are A) super clear what that is in your first speech, B) and why it is net beneficial.
 * 11) **The Kritik**--I started my debate career as a K hack, and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy. The best K debates are those that have Aff specific links in the 1NC, not just topic/state bad links, then take the time to identify evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links in the 2NC or earlier. The best Ks attack the methodology, epistemology, etc. of the Aff, clearly explain this point, and have significant solvency/turns case arguments.
 * 12) Alt solvency is important and often under-debated. I hold the alt to a reasonably high standard for solvency. I like specific explanations, usually in CX, of how the alt works/what the world of the alt looks like. This is usually a way to either legitimize, or mock a K into being dropped without ever having to read cards. Alts that require re-imagining without suggesting what that might look like have a tougher time with me
 * 13) I have read a lot of K literature, which trends old school (Cap, Heidegger, Feminism, Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Bio-power, all types of Security and IR Ks, etc). I may not know your authors, so overviews are great to provide the thesis of your argument.
 * 14) I am not well read in identity politics literature (except Feminism), so take a second to be thorough with your explanations.
 * 15) **Theory --** I am not a theory hack, and don't think it is educational for teams to go into a round looking to win on theory. This is a great way to lose speaker points even if you win the round.
 * 16) Topic education and clash is very important to me, and if you run a courts CP and politics, and claim the other team hurts topic education, then I will laugh openly.
 * 17) Impact your theory well. **__If winning on theory is your goal going into the round, strike me.__** Theory is important to ensure fairness and prevent cheating. If theory is a substitute for clash about the topic, I vote against you and spend the debate on Facebook.
 * 18) Conditionality--I default to believing that the Neg gets two off case “worlds” and the SQ as an option. I’m very willing to hear justifications for more, or what types of worlds these can be, but have never (yet) voted for a more limiting position.


 * LD Philosophy**

I did LD (and went to the TOC in LD) in high school. Back in the day, LD was a distinct form of debate with a Value, a Value Criteria, and Contentions that centered around values and philosophy. It was distinctly different than policy debate (fiat, research intensive, about policymaking, etc.), and should stay that way. Different formats of debate exist for a reason, and shouldn't blend together. I miss teams having a Value/Value Criteria/Contentions centered case, and believe there is a lot of educational value in different forms of debate being distinctly different.

I frequently vote on this argument offered as a theoretical objection to progressive LD.

I judge a lot of policy rounds, so I'm a very experienced judge, but don't coach LD at the moment, so I may not be up on that month's topic or the latest trend in argumentation. If both teams are engaging in "progressive LD," I will judge it like an understaffed policy debate. I can deal with spreading. If you do it, I will flow it, and if your opponent can't, tough luck. If he/she says that spreading is bad in LD, and has a warranted argument for it, (theory style) I will listen __very attentively.__ I am very flow centric/better at flowing than 90% of LD judges. (See experienced policy judge, above).


 * PF Philosophy**

Please don't make me judge public forum. The activity is a nice intro to debate for middle school students, but serious debaters should move on once they've mastered the basics to LD, Congress, or Policy. If I end up judging public forum, I will wing it, because the whole point of the activity is to be accessible to the general public, a lay judge. I will flow (ish) and look for superior argumentation skills.


 * Student Congress**

I used to compete in Student Congress, back in the day when the student vote largely determined the winners of the activity. I don't think the judge should have much more power than creating a ballot of the top students for y'all to vote on, but if the tournament gives me more power, I will embrace it. Be charismatic and make some unique arguments.

I judge 50-50 on presentation and substance.


 * Presentation: Make me perk up and listen, command the room, and be witty, etc.
 * Substance: Be organized, and succinct. Have specific, substantive arguments.
 * Presiding Officers: I won a gavel at NFL (back in the day) nationals for presiding because I was fast and got more speeches in without screwing up. I will look for the same skill set.
 * Questions: I note who asks good questions, and who participates frequently. The ballots usually say best legislator, not best speaker, so I will include this in your score.


 * Worlds/Parli/Big Questions**

I don't know what these things are, but hear they exist. This will be interesting.