Huett,+Tillman

I debated for 4 years at Pflugerville HS in Texas graduating in 2013. I was locally and nationally competitive, qualifying to the TOC twice. I was coached by Martin Sigalow so if there is any issues that I don’t cover, check his wiki and odds are it’ll be my view. I am a first year out for the 2013-2014 season so my views may change throughout the year but I’ll update my paradigm.

Here is a quick run-down of how I judge: I did everything when I debated. If you are a national circuit debater then I am probably a good judge for you. I will vote on anything, just give me some way to evaluate the round. I like theory, skep, contingent standards, util, philosophy, and triggers and will vote on it like anything else. I am also a point fairy. Go fast, I don’t care. Be clear since I cannot flow too well but if I miss something and it’s my fault then I will call for cards.

As a debater, I hated when judges would impose their dogmatic beliefs on a debate round. Thus, my only dogmatism is that I believe that debate is a space to be used by the debaters to have their voices heard and that my role as the judge is to evaluate what is said and determine who I think did the “better” debating. It is up to the debaters to determine what “better” means in a particular round.

Also, I want to make the right decision. I hate when judges act like they want to be anywhere in the world besides that round and so I will always try to be in engaged in the round. I will watch and try and remember CX, I will always be flowing during the rebuttals and I will just extend the human decency that exists outside of debate. Ask me questions after the round, if you think I screwed up then I tell me and I will try to clarify my decision.

I like to laugh and will most likely be in a friendly mood if I judge you. If I don’t know you, I will probably introduce myself (especially on the local circuit since I will be judging in Austin a ton). Anyone can watch the round (unless the tournament doesn’t allow it) and I would like any debater to allow others to watch.

I wish people would print the cases they are going to read. Not only does it make you a better speaker but I also don’t have to wait while files are flashed. But I know most people will be reading off their computers so here are some of my views. First, I don’t think that debaters have to flash their stuff if the debater will allow their opponent to have it during CX and their prep. Second, I do not want to wait for flashing or “putting the case in order”—start CX time and just ask them questions while they do that. Third, if you say you’re going to pass pages then pass them. I don’t know why this is an issue but it seems like it is.

I think many judges try to pretend to be smart and so will vote on arguments they don’t understand and then try to bullshit and RFD from there. I will not do that. If I don’t understand your case, your card, your arguments, etc. I will not pretend like I understand and vote on it. I have seen every type of case/argument so it likely won’t be an issue but here is my caveat. I don’t pretend to be smart but I do know how to do debate.

Here are some basic views of mine


 * Skep: **This is a good argument. Say which way it flows and why and win offense back to it and you’ll win the round. If you read it, make sure to answer your opponent’s framework since if they win an ethic then skep is false. I don’t mind skep triggers, but if you're going to go for them, at least try to slow down on them so I can flow them during the case. I will be very very very very hesistant to vote on contention level skep takes out theory. However, reading rule skep (i.e. Wittgenstein) against theory I may buy since there seems to be real clash there. It’s probably just a better idea to just answer the normal way but it’s your round so whatev.


 * Contingent standards: ** Go for it. I feel like they make sense. Go and win sketchily—that is fun. I also believe theory against these arguments.


 * Theory: ** I love it. I hate it. I used to read theory all the time, and any kids I coach will read theory. I enjoy it. I think it’s very intriguing and very unique to debate. People who try to get out of theory by saying “THEORY IS SO DUMB” are dumb themselves and will likely lose my ballot. There are a ton of procedural issues in law and in policy making that preclude “true” discussion of the issue. So I think theory serves a valuable role in the activity. I hate it when people run stupid theory (must have font in size 12, must flash me your case, etc). For me to vote on theory it need an interp, violation, standard(s), voter. In the voter I want the actual voter (generally fairness or education) as well as what I should do (drop debater/drop arg) and how to evaluate (competing interps/reasonability). I like and will vote on an RVI. I default to the idea that it requires CI and offense not merely an I meet or defense. I default to CI and drop the debater, but can easily be swayed either way. I think that new shells should only be ran in the 1NR/1AR, with CI’s and weighing in the 2NR/2AR. I will vote on meta-theory and it comes first since it frames how I evaluate theory. If a debater reads reasonability, I will gut check theory and decide. That means I will likely drop the debater who I felt was being abusive (for a fairness voter) or was harming education (for an education voter). I will evaluate paragraph theory in the AC, but I want it extended as a shell in the 1AR and I think that in the AC, the theory should give an example about what would constitute a violate.


 * K of Theory: ** I guess I’d vote on it. Seems pretty cool—I’ve never seen one ran so I don’t really know. Win it and you win the round.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Topicality: **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">I think it’s a matter of limits. Give example of Aff’s that would be topical and not topical. Contextualize the impact of limits on topic lit. Nuanced T is awesome. I think drop the argument on T means the AC goes away entirely, but the Aff can still win on turns to an NC. I’m more inclined to believe reasonability on T since I think that some Aff’s are just obviously topical.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Policy Stuff **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">: Go for it. I ran DA’s all the time. I can judge a LARP debate. Weighing is key. I think plan Aff’s need to sit on one advantage by the end of the debate (makes it easier to resolve and is just a better strat). PIC’s are probably abusive but never debated enough of other types of CP’s to decide my feelings. I think CP’s that solve the aff are sweet. If it’s a LARP debate, do weighing as much and often as possible and you’ll win my ballot. If both debaters agree to a util debate and it is more then mediocre, then I will reward at least a 29.5 to both debaters.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Kritiks: **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">I will vote on them if they are explained to me. I think they need an alt, and I am very sympathetic to theory against reject/non-policy implementable alts. The impacts need to impact back to a framework, I don’t assume anything is bad. You better be able to explain it in CX. If you try to obscure the meaning, I’ll obscure your speaker points with a 25. I have almost no background in K lit so just explain it to me. However, if the K is your think and you can explain it and make it seem germane to the round, you will win with very high speaks since not many people can do that. If you win a pre-fiat arg that says I need to endorse something personally, I consider that allowing me to intervene, so if I legitimately believe in what you say you’ll win. If not, you won’t.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Micropol **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">: See kritiks especially the intervention part. I am skeptical that debate as a whole is bad since it has been a great activity for me, but I am more easily persuaded that there are more specific problems with it (i.e. resource disparity/sexism/racism). I will vote on it if won.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Speed: **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Like every other judge, clarity is everything. I enjoy a fast debate where deabters slow down on the important parts. Slow down on tags. If you are unclear, I will say clear a few times with no speaks taken off. If you keep going unheeded by me saying clear, I will get pissed off and stop flowing and dock some speaks. Start slower and then progressively get faster. Number your framework spikes or pause on the multiude of ‘And’s and ‘Moreover’s.


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Weird Pre-fiat stuff: **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Martin Sigalow says it perfectly “ <span style="font-family: Times,serif;">Claiming that fairness not being a voter or skepticism or determinism or something means you can do whatever you want and attempt to sign the ballot or smash your opponents laptop (Berkely 2011) is unacceptable. This is more often than not a way of coercing people who run these types of arguments using threats of force to give up some vital part of their argument. In the same way that I dont expect debaters go to africa and solve AIDS the minute they run consequentialism, I do not hold debaters responsible for random prefiat implications of postfiat arguments. If you do the above, even if they give in and concede some aspect of their argument, you will receive speaker points that will be no bueno. If you collapse the prefiat postfiat distinction and then use the contradiction that arises as a means of rejecting the argument, then I will evaluate it like any other defensive argument.”


 * <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Speaker Points: **<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;"> I will try to be higher then the community average since lots of good people have gotten the 4-2 screw. I don’t want people to be rude. I will scale them to the tournament and will hopefully average a 29. However, if it is a bid tournament that I am judging, I will probably average a 28. Here is a very very general scale:

<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">30- You are funny, spoke well, and will probably break and beat good debaters. <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">29- It was a good debate, maybe your first or second year of debate. A little issues but nothing too impactful <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">28- Ehh. You where rude and didn’t speak well and probably lost. <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">27- You seemed like you didn’t know what debate was <span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">26 or lower- You told racist/homophobic/bigoted jokes and it was terrible and I will tell your coach.

<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">Long story short, this is your round do what you want. I want the round to be fun for everyone involved. Be aggressive, but not rude. I am a very expressive person, you can tell if I’m following what you are saying/like you. Show me you care and I will care about the round. Don’t act like we are friends if your opponent doesn’t know me, I will embarrass you so they won’t feel excluded from the round. If you need a few seconds before a speech to gather your nerves or just otherwise mentally prepare, I will give it to you. This is not prep time and please don’t try to scam me. I just want you to do the best you can do. I think debate is an awesome activity so I want everyone to get the most out of it they can.

<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Times,serif;">If you have any questions, email me at tillman.huett@gmail.com