Keller,+Andy


 * Process Preferences. ** What do you require debaters to do in a round and how do you view your role as judge (e.g., to reward, to sanction behaviors).


 * 1. Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations. ** I am pretty minimalist. I expect the debaters to be respectful toward each other and to others in the room. I expect the debaters to adhere to time limits. My primary sanction would be speaker points. I see winning / losing the round as something the debaters need to sort out.


 * 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) ** Unless local rules dictate otherwise, I require only name of source and date during speeches. If asked by the opponent, the complete citation must be provided and the evidence must be available to the other team and the judge to review, if asked.


 * 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). ** I rarely read evidence. The few times I have were times when counter-claims were made about the evidence and there were questions raised about whether the evidence was read correctly, whether the evidence was problematic in some way (lacking citation, etc.), or about the truthfulness of a claim about the evidence. In those cases, I would read the evidence myself to sort out the counter-claims directly related to the evidence.


 * 4. How do you enforce rule violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? ** I attempt to be tabula rasa in my approach, so I would depend on the debaters to point out and argue appropriate sanctions for a violation. The main standard I would employ would be the reasonableness of the sanction argued (assuming one is argued). I will not impose a sanction unless the debaters bring up the violation. I have never automatically given a loss based on a violation. An example of a reasonable sanction would be to throw out the non-conforming argument or to dock speaker points for issues not directly related to an argument.


 * 5. Open C/X or Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) **
 * A). During C/X ** I am fine with open C/X, as long as both teams treat each other respectfully. If one partner needs tag teaming a lot and cannot do their part, I might reduce their speaker points (as they were depending on their partner rather than their own skills), but not by much.
 * B). During Speeches ** Same parameters as with during C/X.


 * Paradigm and Argument Preferences **
 * 6. Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different paradigm? If so, when and why? ** I aspire to be tabula rasa, and to me this means letting the debaters debate the round. It’s hard for me to vote for illogical arguments, but I will if the other team doesn’t point out the illogic. I am not aware of ever using a different paradigm, though I suppose I might if the debaters argued that I should in the round and did so convincingly. But then, I suppose that would still be tabula rasa, wouldn’t it?


 * 7. Please compare issues of presentation and content. Do you view debate as primarily an activity of communication and persuasiveness? Do you view debate as a search for the best policy option? In other words, does the team with a better presentation/style always win the debate? Under what conditions, if any, would you give a low-point win? ** I view debate as the outcome of the arguments made. Communication and persuasiveness are only tools used to present arguments and the merits of the arguments (or the lack of effective response) are what decide who should win. And the best policy option may win, unless the debate ends up being about something else (like topicality or a kritik). I have given low point wins when one partner was much stronger than the other and when a better team simply makes a major mistake and loses the balance of the arguments made. I don’t do that very often.


 * Argument Preferences– ** include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding:


 * 8. Topicality: ** I vote on topicality, and I think topicality is valid, but it has to be pretty decisive to take out an entire case. However, if no response is made or if it is convincingly argued, then it can be a voter, depending on the standards and parameters argued by the two teams.


 * 9. Disadvantages: ** I weigh them as analogous to affirmative advantages. If the aff wins three advantages and the neg wins three disadvantages and they are all of equal likelihood and weight, then the negative would win because of presumption for the status quo.


 * 10. Counterplans:  ** I see counterplans as legitimate. However, I’m not a student of counterplan theory, so the counterplan would either need to be pretty straightforward (as in, non-topical and mutually exclusive to the plan) or the debaters would need to educate me during the round about the relevant theory I should apply (and do so convincingly).


 * A). Do counterplans need to be non-topical? ** That would be the safest approach with me, unless you are prepared to convincingly argue why it’s fair to the affirmative (or otherwise better) that they not be.


 * B). What makes a counterplan legitimate? ** As noted above, non-topicality and mutual exclusivity are my primary standards. However, I’m open to being convinced otherwise.


 * 11. Kritiks:  **
 * A). Will you/do you vote on kritiks? ** I have and do vote on kritiks. However, they need to be argued well.


 * B). If yes, what does the team running a kritik need to do to win the argument? ** I would weigh a kritik the same way I would weigh any argument – the impacts of the kritik would need to outweigh the impacts raised by the other team’s successful arguments. I’m not particularly enamored with the theory of kritiks – the kritik would simply have to outweigh the benefits (or be otherwise convincingly argued to have more primacy over the utilitarian outcomes of the other arguments). And I also would prefer that the debaters arguing the kritik understand what they are saying. If they are only parroting someone else’s kritik, then it’s hard for me to find that persuasive (though I sometimes vote for them anyway, depending on the gaff response). Key to me is the framework and the use of the framework to constrast the alt to the aff. I'm not into voting for a k just to be trendy.


 * 12. Theory. Please explain any predispositions you may have for or against issues of theory. How likely are you to vote on theoretical arguments (permutations, severance, conditionality, inherency, textual kritik alternatives, specialized topicality issues, dispositionality, etc.)? ** I am familiar with many theoretical arguments, but I am also not a student of theory, so I have a pretty straightforward approach that depends on how the theory is argued in the round. In short, I will entertain any theoretical argument made, but it will need to be explained in the round and argued convincingly within a clear framework with clear impacts. Debaters should not depend on me to fill in gaps in their arguments or to have read the latest blog on theory that backs up their point. You need to make the argument in the round.


 * 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? ** I am not aware of any inclination that I have for or against voting on case side arguments. The case is simply a set of initial arguments made by the affirmative. I’ve voted affirmative on D/A turns when no case side arguments were won. I’ve also voted negative with no D/As or other successful off case when negs have taken out the case in its entirety and I’m left only with the initial presumption for the status quo. I do believe that presumption is with the negative, however; i have to be persuaded to vote "try or die" - it's not a presumption for me.

Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following:
 * Style and Performance **

(slower – equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 **9** 10  I selected a “9” because, while I’ve yet to encounter anyone who can talk faster than I can flow, I suppose it is a theoretical possibility. And I do need to actually comprehend the words said in order to flow them, and I have a few times heard people “talk” so fast that it actually can’t be comprehended (e.g., too quiet and fast, poor enunciation, monotone delivery without apparent spaces between words, failure to highlight tags, etc.).
 * 13. Speed of Delivery  **


 * Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? ** No, or at least not directly. It’s not my job to intervene. However, I will likely appear confused or not be flowing if I can’t understand the debater. And if the debater asked me if they were talking too fast or too inarticulately to be understood, I would answer honestly.


 * 14. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? ** I put a high value on analytics, but it’s hard to beat good evidence without counter-evidence. That being said, if the “evidence” is just someone else’s analysis, then I’m open to counter-analysis made in the debate round.


 * 15. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? ** In my view, the 2NC is a “constructive” so it is perfectly valid to make new arguments in the 2NC (and I have never understood why anyone would think otherwise. Because of that, I’m also open to the 1AR introducing “new” arguments in response to the 2NC, if necessary (and assuming they have time), but I don’t really consider this “new” – it’s just a response to the 2NC. That being said, I am __not__ open to other new arguments in the 1AR (but, of course, if the other team doesn’t point it out, then I may not vote on it). Also, I think the negative is at a distinct disadvantage if they fail to respond to case in the 1NC and only focus on off case.


 * 16. Is there anything else students/coaches should know about your judging philosophy (e.g., are there any substantive arguments you have biases for or against, etc.)? ** As I said, I try to keep myself and my opinions out of the round, other than enforcing time limits, stopping disruptive and other rude behavior that interferes with the presentations of the speakers or basic fairness, and supporting the premise that new arguments should only be made during constructive speeches (other than the 1AR’s responses to new 2NC arguments, as noted above). I will also enforce local rules, of course, but the debaters need to bring them up and identify a reasonable way to enforce them. To give some examples on how I might intervene regarding disruptive, rude or unfair behavior, I might ask a team talking loud enough to each other during a constructive that I couldn’t understand their opponent’s speech to quiet down and, if they didn’t, I might stop the speech and be insistent that they do so. I would also dock speaker points for this, as I have to be able to hear what the other team is saying. Also, if a team has their evidence on a computer, it isn’t reasonable for them in my view to expect that they other team has their own computer to view it on. They need to either bring another computer they can loan to the other team for viewing evidence (one that functions adequately, I might add) or give their computer to the other team for as long as they reasonably need access to the evidence. It isn’t fair to assume that every debate team can afford to bring a computer to the round just to read your evidence. Basically, I need to create a fair and reasonable space in which the teams can make their arguments, and I will do my best to do so, as well as my best to keep my own biases out of their arguments.