Smelko,+Bill

Debated at Redlands Decades Ago-Judging For La Costa Canyon & San Dieguito Academy
I will be judging at ten-twelve tournaments this year on the Space Topic. In the past 9 years I have judged 50 to 60 rounds a year. I have been priileged to judge a number of quality high school debates, and this year judged 6 amazingly good college debates at the Kentucky Round Robin, sometimes getting to the right result, and sometimes for the right reason. I have a passing familiarity with many of the post-post modern, new, new wave of debate trends, fads and styles that have been passed down from college to high school.

Topicality: In more mainstream, old school style debates, with Affirmative Teams that offer Plans to accomplish an expansion in Space research or development, I will probably lean Affirmative to a very great degree on T. When I debated everything was topical, but that’s kind of before the advent of alternative styles, and so if your Aff is alternative, without a Plan, my lean on the T debate might become “more balanced.”

Abuse and Ground Loss: I somewhat believe that it is not the Aff’s job to “give” the Neg ground, and vice-versa. To me, the object is to win the debate round, and imposing on one team an OBLIGATION to “allow” ground, options or vast quantities of space to the other side is not, it seems, a real “duty” that one team “owes” to the other team. So, that said, one-line arguments asserting all levels and manner of abuse stories, and advocated as voting issues 1-300, might not be as voteable to me as they are asserted to be by the debaters.

Theory: Thoroughly explained and well-impacted theory arguments are best, but the same is true with any argument. I do not enjoy listening to theory debates, anywhere nearly as much as I enjoy listening to other debate arguments like disads, counterplans, clearly linked and explained K’s, case harms, solvency questions and, dare I write it, inherency arguments; but theory, like any other well-developed argument, can be won if impacted, and certainly if it is meaningfully argued, highlighted, explained and impacted as a voting issue when first presented and meaningfully extended throughout the debate by one team and then dropped or just lost by the other in any particular round. My preference is for teams to debate the substantive arguments, rather than rely on cheap, dropped theory blurbs.

Mechanics: I do flow, so even if you both ask me not to, I’ll probably still take notes because I will probably need the help remembering. I LOVE debaters who can debate the line by line with line by line responses.

The Topic:: I am a lawyer by profession and have reviewed some topic oriented materials. I should be aware of many of the mainstream issues and arguments that may be injected into debates about space, but will not be as familiar with the more esoteric kritikal literature debates. Explanations in alternative, K or performance debates is probably more essential to obtaining my ballot than in the disad-counterplan debate, for example.

Alternative Debate Styles: I try to think that I am //tabula// //rosa// because I firmly believe that the debate round is for the debaters to win or lose on the arguments they make during the round. So, that said, do your thing, but defend the WHAT and the WHY of what it is that you choose to do in the time you are allotted for the presentation of your materials. If as an affirmative team you are performing without a plan, or perhaps even with one, then (as indicated earlier) please make sure you are able to defend the topicality of your performance or movement in the face of a T attack.

Limitations & Preferences: Civility, kindness, professional language [not cursing, swearing or ad homs] and even politeness to your partner and to your opponents is greatly appreciated and well-rewarded. I tend to be a much higher speaker point critic than other judges I have heard about and my initial baseline for speaker points will probably be pretty high, unless you are not polite, or falsify evidence. Typically, I do NOT read evidence after the round because I firmly believe this to be an oral activity decided DURING the round by the debaters speaking, not AFTER the round by the judge reading, but if I have doubts or am asked and it matters to my decision, I will oblige the debaters and will peruse the cards. Even then, though, I will try mightily not to add to, or subtract from, the arguments made during the speeches about the evidence. Your debate, not mine. The arguments made DURING your speeches, not my post-hoc RE-READING of your evidence, will typically govern my decision calculus. My suggestion to you all would be for you to observe my reactions as you are making your presentations. It might help you to perhaps better understand my reason for decision.