Lacy,+JP


 * JP Lacy, Wake Forest, 08-09, working on 16 years judging
 * **09-10** Usage Note: I wrote this judging philosophy during the 08-09 season. Everything is different with the Nuclear Weapons topic. Everything can change.


 * Do the best you can. Be nice. Treat others the way you expect to be treated.




 * I am not a Tabula Rasa judge. I usually vote for the team advancing the better policy option.




 * I want to see you at your best: I appreciate the need to “do what it takes” to win with the stuff you have in your box. You can change the question from “is the (topical) plan better than the status quo and a competing alternative?” but it takes work (or concession by the opposition) to overcome my predisposition.




 * **Paperless**




 * Please see below!




 * **Tell me how to judge.**




 * This is priority one. The thing I’m most “tabula rasa” about is how to evaluate a debate. I defer first to the debater’s interpretation of how to decide. Yes, I have a personal bias about debate, but more importantly, I’m not interested in “culture wars.” I’m more interested in finding points of commensurability that allow the “best argument to carry the day” given the constraints of a competitive activity that is at once fair, educational and “fun.”




 * I’ve grown increasingly frustrated judging “clash of civilizations” debates: Not because I think they are fruitless, but because the participants do not engage deeply in arguing about “how to decide & why,” and because many of these debates are executed at top speed. See my comments on flowing & topicality: I will reward you for developing in depth “framework” arguments in a comprehensible and well-reasoned manner.




 * I start by resolving “framework” issues about the purpose of the debate and how I should decide. You should develop these issues even when the “framework” is not in contention. The kind of policy judge you persuade me to be can have a drastic impact on the outcome. Tabula Rasa, Hypothesis Tester, Big Picture, Games Player, Critic of Argument, Truth Seeker, Link Dick, Neg Theory Hack, Bean Counter, Try or Die’er, Rescherist…All of these are ways to judge a “policy” round. Each of them can reach a completely different result given the exact same debate round. They should be treated as seriously as any other “framework” issue.




 * **Flowing**




 * My flowing is bad. Real bad. I do listen to the best of my abilities, but I’m old: Older than I look. I started debating in 1984. My memory is bad. My pen is probably the slowest on any panel you will encounter. I still use a pen. I can barely read my handwriting. My hearing is going downhill too.




 * If you expect to win “on the flow,” do several things: 1. Frontload your arguments [Frontloading – That means put the most important words of your argument at the beginning, that way, following my first instinct, I’ll write them down.] 2. Give me pen time. Wait for me to catch up. 3. Talk slow & be efficient. Ideas per minute on the flow is the true measure of speed. This is especially true when it comes to theory arguments. 4. Draw lines. If you absolutely have to try to win the round on a single line on the flow, direct me to the original argument by number, tag, cite & textual reference. Then say what your opponent said, why it was wrong, why your next speech beat their arguments, & why you win on the argument.




 * Summary of above: **Debate meta-arguments slowly and efficiently** (that definitely includes the vitally important part about ‘telling me how to judge’.) Watch me to make sure I have your “how to decide” arguments on my flow. I’ve seen too many debates where those issues were debated far too quickly or superficially for me to process, let alone resolve in a meaningful way.




 * I usually make up my mind quickly, within the first ten or fifteen minutes after the debate. Once I’ve made up my mind about who won, I spend the rest of my time arguing with myself until I'm comfortable making a decision. During that process, I try to give every argument in the debate as many "readings," or as much credit as I can.




 * I do have a threshold for what counts as an argument: a claim with a good reason. "We turn the link because grass is green" is not a good reason, nor are glaringly illogical statements like "We win uniqueness so there can only be a link."




 * Well-presented, well-reasoned & well-worded arguments count more than random spew. I rarely vote on cheap shots. I don’t even bother flowing most so-called “voting issues.” I take the time to rest my flowing hand. Bad theory is usually a reason to reject an argument: if a team can’t win without that argument, they will lose, beyond that there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to vote because an argument is “out of bounds.”




 * Evidence: I rely as much as I can on how debaters use evidence instead of the evidence itself. I can think of many interpretations of debate cards, many of them the exact opposite of each other. So, you should focus on how evidence should be read instead of getting me to read evidence. I will read cards. But, I want interpretive guidance.




 * New arguments: Tell me they’re new, why new arguments should be ignored, then answer them. New 2ar arguments are discounted then they get the “3nr treatment:” If the 2ac or 1ar made them, what could the negative say, & would they have made different strategic choices?




 * Cross-Examination is speech time. I pay attention (sometimes.) I write things down if they seem important: "Is the counter plan dispositional?" "What does dispositional mean?" and similar questions are important to me. I get bored when debaters waste their CX asking for evidence.




 * Topicality: I will vote on it. It is a prior issue (see caveat in paragraph three.) Speak slowly when you debate it. To win, the negative needs a clear interpretation, that the affirmative doesn't meet, that is better than the affirmative's interpretation, and a good reason I should vote for the “better” interpretation.




 * Major pet peeve: 1nc’s who don’t read the text of their definitions. I can barely flow, need pen time, & really do want to listen to your definition to see how it supports your interpretation.




 * Specification: Its good. Use it to your advantage. Agent specification aside, if you won’t specify other substantive parts of your plan, I will definitely be rooting against you.




 * Counter plans: If the best policy includes the entire plan, I'll want to vote aff. To win, a counterplan must be net-beneficial: better than the plan or a legitimate permutation. Legitimate permutations include the entire plan plus all or part of the counter plan and nothing else. International fiat and 50 state fiat are hard to win, but I've seen it happen more often than not. Alternate federal agents (like congress, the executive, or courts) are up for grabs. Multiple actor fiat is at least as hard to win as international fiat.




 * Important Quirk: I will probably call for the text of any permutation that I'm seriously considering. I usually need to read the plan and the CP. I'm often not certain what exactly the permutation is. Debaters talk fast. There is almost an hour from the end of 2AC until the end of the round. I have a bad memory. These factors make it difficult to determine the permutation's legitimacy or desirability.




 * Exclusion counterplans: Nearly all exclusion counterplans are legitimate. Non-topical exclusions are even more legitimate. Whether or not the counterplan competes, or actually excludes something from the plan is a different question that you must resolve. Textuality does not settle the issue: A counterplan that adds "never" to the plan is not textually competitive even though it excludes the entirety of the plan. A counterplan that crosses out “in the US” from the plan is textually competitive, but fails the functional do both test. The “Textual & Functional” test is silly because it rules out the counterplan to add “never” to the plan. Functional competition is a more useful measure of “exclusion.”




 * Dispositionality/Conditionality: My default is to vote for permutations when they are the best policy available, and to vote negative if the status quo is the best policy. The status quo is always an option. See paragraph three: is the plan better than the status quo and a competitive alternative? Proof that a counterplan is worse than the plan cannot logically answer that question. (This means judge conditionality is in effect until overridden by debaters.) If you want to make a different deal, like "We can't kick it if its straight turned; it vanishes if we concede a permutation, & if the 2nr goes for it but loses it, they lose" you can, but you need to be explicit about it.




 * Kritiks: To vote negative, I need something to hang my hat on. If you speak only in abstracts, I will probably abstract a way to vote on the affirmative's "permutation" arguments. I implement the “judge able to explain” test: If I am incapable of explaining your argument, I won’t vote on it. I honestly can’t bring myself to look a team in the face and say “I don’t understand this argument, but I think you lost on it, whatever it was.” I will try as hard as I can to understand your arguments, but if the “decision deadline” is anywhere close and I still can’t figure out what you meant, you are going to lose. This is obviously arbitrary, so err on the safe side and keep your arguments simple.




 * I'm "Old School" when it comes to kritiks: If the affirmative can come up with a reason to vote for the plan by the end of the round, I will err affirmative. I prefer kritiks defended as exclusive or preclusive of the affirmative plan. I still believe that the negative has the burden to rejoin the plan. From this perspective, "permutations" are very important: If the negative's perspective, or "alternative," justifies or fails to address the plan, I will usually (want to) vote affirmative. If the negative's perspective leaves the affirmative without warrant, I will vote negative.




 * I don't understand "fiat is an illusion" arguments. These arguments usually amount to utter nonsense like: "Don't weigh the affirmative advantages, the kritik is pre-fiat. Weigh their advocacy first. Vote on in-round impacts." It doesn't seem possible to examine the language the aff uses to explain why the plan should happen without considering the policy reasons they give. Examining that language, or that thinking, is considering policy. Fiat and "discourse" are two sides of the same coin: what you speak of is how you speak.




 * Good kritiks make the plan indefensible even to a decision-maker with the actual power to adopt the plan. The force of logically prior arguments cannot be ignored. A construction of reality that is wrong enough to justify voting negative renders policy reasons irrelevant, incoherent or just plain wrong. Many "fiat illusory" arguments are really just ways for the negative to conjure even more fiat than has ever been imagined: "Reject the state, fiat is an illusion" sounds like a veiled anarchy counter plan to me. I’ve seen the affirmative fall for the trick very often by failing to challenge the negative's framework.




 * "New School critiques," of the "we advocate the affirmative minus their objectionable speech act" variety can (at times) be persuasive as well. Honestly, it depends how bad the “speech act” is and how good your framework arguments & evidence are.




 * If your kritik includes multiple layers of reasons to vote (policy, old school case take-out/turn, value, thinking, rhetoric/speech act) you are more likely to win.




 * Please refer to the third paragraph: you can “change the subject” if your reasons for doing so are well warranted and/or poorly debated by the opposition.




 * Kritik affs: If you won't defend your plan (or don't have a plan) & have to impact turn Topicality, do it *very* well. See the first few paragraphs about *telling me how to judge* for guidance. Be aware that you are starting at less than zero & need to capitalize on every opportunity the neg gives you.




 * Performance: See the paragraph about evidence. I want interpretive guidance. Without it, I'm either free-ranging or relying on the oppositions interpretation. Also see the paragraphs about instructing me how to judge.




 * ps: These are all defaults, nothing more. Nothing here is set in stone except for the part about flowing.




 * **Paperless Debating**




 * Below is what I posted on eDebate recently. Quick version: I fully support debating without paper! But, I won't delay the tournament because you are paperless. When the tab room expects a decision, I'll render one. I expect you to start on time regardless of whether or not you are using paper.


 * 


 * "The Shirley (Wake's tournament) enforces a strict 2:45 decision deadline during prelims. We do our best to begin rounds on time by informing participants regularly of the start time. Our tournament won't be delayed because some rounds took "extra time" to transfer evidence. We give participants adequate time to move rooms & plenty of time for pre-round preparation (Typically 45 minutes from the release of pairings.) I firmly believe that if rounds are scheduled with enough pre-round prep & enough decision time, & debates begin as scheduled, tournaments will run on time to the benefit of all involved.


 * 


 * That said, I fully support the move to debating without paper.


 * 


 * I think that paperless will eventually save time.


 * 


 * It currently saves time for paperless teams: No box moving, no time wasted printing, streamlined filing process.


 * 


 * If we can eliminate box moving from pre-round prep, we will likely save 15 minutes per round & can start scheduling accordingly once the vast majority of teams eliminate paper.


 * 


 * Transfer time: This is obviously the biggest problem at the moment. I've heard all the horror stories but haven't witnessed any myself. I do like Russell's "time is charged to the transferring team" rule, (I'm a bit more flexible -- I'm willing to allow one minute to jump, dropbox or otherwise transfer ev pre-speech because that is almost equivalent to the time it should take a papered debater to do analogous things.)


 * 


 * I'd like to add some initial caveats (That are definitely open to deliberation.):


 * 


 * 1. Once its up & readable on a viewing computer, other "transfer time" should be charged to the opposition. If you insist on two copies of the speech, or want to print their stuff, it comes out of your time. If a team's viewing computer is not reasonably usable, we'll negotiate to find the best solution.


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">2. "My computer sucks" is not a valid excuse. You are a debater. You have one computer. There are many like it, but the one you use is yours. You must master it. Keep your computer running well. Fix it or find another if you have to. (Its still cheaper than printing.) The vast majority of performance problems are because users do not maintain their computers well. Saying "my computer is too slow" is like saying "my filing system & in round organization suck."


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">3. One free reboot per team. Paper using debaters get one free time out if their podium falls over. No more. No thinking during reboots. Make small talk instead. The weather is always interesting. Make sure your computers work. Communication is more technological now. If we are trying to teach people to be better communicators & debaters, they need to know technology. Learn what you need to communicate with the technology you are using. Even Obama doesn't get a free pass if his teleprompter fails. Transfer time longer than a minute might be counted as your "free reboot."


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">4. Speech.doc organization: Due diligence must be paid to providing the opponent with an organized copy of the evidence you read. Teams will be penalized for negligent or intentional disorganization. (A 50 page 2ac is facially un-acceptable. If you have 10 page frontlines to all their arguments in a well structured document, I think its alright, even though you should write better 2ac blocks.) Penalties obviously depend on the situation: If the other team can't be reasonably expected to read your evidence when you do, I may disregard the argument. If your organization is so bad that they can't read a majority of your evidence, I might disregard all your arguments by 50 percent. If I think your confusion is intentional, you'll get the same penalty a speaker who refuses to share any of their evidence with the opposition would. I think you are obligated to provide a copy of evidence & other relevant texts upon your presentation of them. If your practices fulfill that obligation, you are fine.


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">


 * <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I think this whole transfer time problem will be eliminated with time. I'm more than willing to consider alternatives to the above!"