Seaver,+Frank

Woodward Academy
When I read other Judge Philosophy forms, I often come across what I feel is a gross misconception when the judges espouse how they "won't intervene," will "stay strict to the line-by-line," and brag that you can "run whatever you want, I'm cool." Well, as someone around this activity back when Reagan was President, I bear witness to the fact that we all basically signed on to this philosophy way back then. However, one of the outgrowths of all this postmodern reading we do to defend or attack critiques is that most of us have realized that (a) intervention is inevitable, (b) staying strict to the line-by-line often is arbitrary (I will get specific), and (c) sure, run whatever you want, but there are just some arguments that I realize I have a higher threshold for finding persuasive. The goal of the Tabula Rasa judge with their blank slate is a pipedream. You should view my Judge Philosophy form as a cheat sheet that can help you increase the likelihood of successfully communicating your message to me. Here are some basic thoughts.

META ASSUMPTION #1: Being a high school coach greatly influences how I view each debate. Postmodernism 101 is that you can¹t separate the text from the author. I am a full-time, card-cutting debate coach. If you want a clue as to what I think are good or bad arguments or what are good or bad tactics, look to what Woodward teams tend to do. We spend a lot of time focusing on strategy and evidence. Clearly, this is something I value from this activity and I¹m sure it impacts what I like to hear. However, I fully comprehend that this is a game where the goal is (most often) to win. So, of course that means that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I generally find that coaches tend to vote for the team that does the better debating rather than sifting through all your cards or worrying if the #3 off the 2NC #3 that was answering the 2AC #6 was dropped. I certainly think that I fall into that category. However, my reputation back when I was a hired-gun judge when I was an impoverished graduate student was to pay meticulous attention to the detail of the line-by-line and I think I still retain much of that focus even as I hope to reward the team I feel is doing the better debating.

META ASSUMPTION #2: Judge intervention is inevitable. Judges that declare that they "Will Not Intervene" scare me to death when I can¹t strike them. Communication is a two-way street. The judge is involved whether they want to admit this to themselves or not. I prefer this mantra: I try to discover the least interventionary way to fairly make a decision. From this viewpoint, a key for success is explanation. You know, explanation is not a sign of intellectual weakness. Rather, it often seems that lack of explanation is hiding a lack of understanding. The best college debaters, the best HS debaters, the best lawyers, the best teachers they all excel at explanation. There is a reason for that. The more you explain, the more you are likely to produce the least interventionary way for me to decide the debate. And, this increases the likelihood for me being convinced that you know what you are doing or know your evidence as well as (I think) I do. So, if the opposition has dropped an important argument, your not home yet. Explain why the concession is important. And, beware: there may be a line-by-line argument elsewhere that you either dropped or may end up losing that challenges the assumptions behind the argument you have won. This is the myth of the line-by-line that arguments are not interrelated at the assumptive level. This is why judging is not as easy as "you dropped this so you lose." How does a dropped claim with little to no warrant interact with a dropped (or lost) warrant elsewhere on the flow with the implied claim that contradicts this claim? That should be for the debaters to argue.

META ASSUMPTION #3: My job as a judge is to make decisions. I am not afraid of this task. Currently, it is in vogue for debaters and judges to use phrases like "Defense may win the Super Bowl, but it can't win debates." What is this horseshit? OK, sure, it is rare that I assign ZERO risk to a disad, but a low probability of a disad will probably be outweighed. But, I worry that this offense/defense game (particularly with theory debates) has become an excuse for judge laziness. I tend to think abuse is a threshold issue, so a defensive answer can prove that the abuse threshold has not been met. Don¹t get me wrong: I think looking at arguments as offensive or defensive is a great teaching technique. I just think it is a gimmick that leads to poor judging and bad debates. The coach in me doesn¹t want to reward a T violation that only allows one case because the aff made super defensive answers to the violation but when she neglected to make an offensive arg, the 2NC was allowed to say "Ah-ha! No risk of offense on T, so we will win." I am not afraid to make a decision, particulary when the issue becomes a "yes" or "no" proposition. I will try to choose the least interventionary route when at this crossroad.

TOPICALITY: I suspect I am more open to topicality than the norm. However, I presume affirmative which means the neg has the burden to win their argument. I shun the notion that the aff has to provide an offensive reason for the various actions or clauses in their plan. Sure, these things can proven to be extra-topical, but the burden rests with the neg to prove this. Topic specific violations are the ones I tend to find persuasive; generic T args don't impress me ("should means ought, not shall" and "in does not mean throughout").

THEORY: I have been backstage, I have seen the strings holding the puppets - the thrill is gone here. While you gotta do what you gotta do, I'm not a big fan of debaters that treat theory as their "A" strategy. Remember, the "Ah-ha, they got no offense" game is not my bag. You still can win it, but ready to be schooled after the debate if you think the fact that the 2NC "had no offense" means "any risk of offense for us means we win." I tend to see abuse as a threshold issue and I find that precedent for future abuse is the more persuasive standard since it is more removed from the adversarial self-serving claims of "in-round" or "no in-round abuse." I guess I am willing to use my experience to make decisions about "in-round abuse," but the "potential for abuse arguments" tend to be superior precisely because it evaluates abuse from a neutral perspective. I am more impressed if the theory arguments seem to come from the debater' head rather than some block. So, my coaching advice is to slow down a tad and find some places to get off your blocks as I highly, highly doubt that I will vote on dropped answer #11 that took two seconds to read. Left to my own devices and I will probably presume the plan is the focus of the debate.

CRITIQUES: I prefer topic specific critiques that clash against the plan. I tend to side with the aff on permutations, especially when the link is more generic. Since I am a teacher, I guess that makes me a closet optimist; so, I tend to opt to "try or die" rather then embrace nihilistic "reject the aff" alternatives. You will be more successful if you tell me how I can tell the other team why the alternative provides some kind of liberation strategy. Regarding activism and speech acts, I tend to believe that debate should prepare for activism rather than assume an activist strategy. So, I tend to have some "competitive fairness" concerns regarding speech act or activism stances. But, that is my predisposition and I am not a zombie to that thinking. And, I realize that that political power from a debate round is a bit more nuanced than my explanation. Since this debate is relatively fresh, I am still somewhat interested in it. By the way, I think I am much more open to the legitimacy of plan inclusive alternatives (floating PICs) for me, this is nothing new since most language-based critiques leave open the possibility of the plan being endorsed under different circumstances.

COUNTERPLANS: I think I concur with conventional wisdom here. Topical CPs that compete seem fair. The CP should be net beneficial or mutually exclusive. I think permutations function as “no links” that challenge the competition of the CP. My teams tend to run plan specific counterplans rather than generic process CPs I guess that should tell you something about my strategic predispositions.

DISADVANTAGES: Great defensive answers are better than weak (or strategically dangerous) offensive arguments. If the neg says you cause genocide, please do not consider impact turning because you can¹t win uniqueness for your link turn. Left to my defaults, I will probably assign ³some² risk of the DA, but this can overcome with arguments as to why a critical flaw in the DA means I should assign zero risk. Well explained logical arguments can go along way with me especially if intuitively correct. Uniqueness and link throwdowns should be accompanied by warrants, rather than just a barrage of cards.

RANDOM THOUGHTS: - Speed is fine. It rarely impresses me. I tend to lose enthusiasm for flowing blippy warrantless (or barely warranted such as "VI for reasons of fairness") claims. I gain enthusiasm for flowing warrants, delivered fast or slow. - It is not uncommon for me to make a quick decision, so you should not take that personally. I am usually familiar with the arguments so I don¹t need to read cards to get educated. Furthermore, I am actively thinking about the debate as it is occurring, so often many of my decisions are able to be made as I hear the 2AR leave open or close doors. - I try to not read evidence after the round as I want the burden to be on the debaters' to explain their key cards. If I do read cards, I tend to read all the cards on both sides on that issue. - I am impressed by composure, poise and an individual¹s ability to not take themselves so seriously. I see obnoxiousness and meanness as a tell of one's insecurity. - At tournaments, my nerves tend to be short for a variety of reasons, so my threshold for not being annoyed by stealing prep, controlling your partner's CX and things like tends to be lower. But, I am so numbed by all this that I do a good job of forgetting about it almost immediately.

TYPICAL COMMENTS I TEND TO MAKE IN MY DECISION (to help understand how I react to things):

"I voted neg primarily because I thought the 2NR was closer to implementing their vision than the 2AR." (I tend to take final rebuttal macro-overviews very seriously). "You never communicated to me that you understood that level of the link so that is why I was reluctant to make that connection for you." (I tend to think I know more about the issues in the debate then the debaters, so either prove you are on the same page with me, or enlighten me to my ignorance either way, that requires explanation). "I wish you have weighed the debate under this contingency." (I take "Even ifs" conditional comparisons very seriously). "Sure, I could have voted that way, I thought about that and just didn't think you established that enough." (I find that I am thinking less and less debates are blowouts and I am amused by the bluster of those I sit on panels with that declare a debate a crush when little explanation exists on either side. The lesson here is I take explanation very seriously.). "You didn¹t answer these 1AC cards, so you basically could have won all your disad and still lost." (Identifying and clashing with the oppositions winning vision is critical in my mind). "Yeah, I know that genocide is bad, I wish you would have argued why a pretty good chance of stopping genocide outweighs a slightly risk of causing nuclear war." (It may not be enough just to win your argument.)

"No, I didn't read the Baker evidence because you never flagged to me in the final rebuttal that you thought it was important." (I resist going on card fishing expeditions for you.)

"You don't give me enough explanation for me to look the other team in the eye and tell the I voted on this." (Again, I take explanation very seriously.)