Johnson,Tony

Tony Johnson
I deb ated at Centennial H.S. in Boise, Idaho (2002-2006) and in college for the University of Wyoming and Idaho State University (2006-2011). I have coached for Ashland H.S. (2008-2011), San Diego State University (2011-2012) and Southwestern (CA) College (2011-2013). Currently the Co-Director of Forensics at Juan Diego Catholic High School. 7th year judging H.S. debates.

__ **Short version** __ Debate is a game. The rules are debatable, so I encourage you to establish a way for me to score your round. That means you should tell me how to evaluate, prioritize, and compartmentalize certain issues in the debate.

To the extent it is possible, I will try to keep my predispositions away from your debate. I consider myself to be a clinician of argument tasked with evaluating the debate by listening to what you say and how you say it. I pay close attention to my to my flow unless asked to evaluate in some other form or fashion. If I call for cards I will rely on your spin and explanation from the round over my reading of the evidence in the post round.

In general, I weigh competing claims and try to privilege warranted explanation and impact comparison. Logical reasoning is rewarded, especially when pointing out logical gaps in your opponents scenarios.

__ **Long(er) Version ** __ I credit several people for training me as a debater, coach and judge. I think it is instructive to call on them to give you an idea about how I judge debates:

__My hero in debate is Dr. Sarah Partlow-Lefevre, the Director of Forensics at Idaho State University.__ She taught me much of what I know about debate. She also sees the judges position as an evaluator of argument. In this world explanation and spin are key. "I seek to evaluate the quality of explanation of an argument in the debate. The debater's job is to communicate an argument to the judge. This means that arguments that are key parts of your strategy should be explained. I do not consider a list of jargon (for policy or critcal debates) clear explanation. Evidence is important to the way that I decide debates . . . but, it is not paramount. The debaters' arguments and explanations are much more important. Arguments about the spin on evidence or the quality of the evidence are always helpful in my judging process and are usually necessary to make me read much the evidence after the debate."

__My former debate partner, Mike Bausch and I learned debate together.__ His 'debate mind' is probably the most similar to mine in terms of training. He profoundly writes that any strategy can be powerful, provided that it is persuasively argued: "Debate is a game and strategy influences everything we do. Technique and truth are both aspects of strategy. Good, persuasive debating can make any strategy powerful.... teams that win in front of me provide me with judge instruction. Please write my ballot for me. What does this argument mean if you win it? What should I do with it in relation to other things in the debate? What does it mean if your opponents win some of their arguments?"

__Sam Allen and I have been dear friends since we both started debate in 2002.__ I love what he writes about CX. I firmly believe that debates are won and lost (most often) in cross examination. I also enjoy and will reward teams for treating it like a speech. Have questions prepared and execute strategically. This is the only time the competitors dialogue with one another directly and I love it. Sam writes, "Cross-x: I think this is the best part of debate. Arguments clarified in cross-x should be consistently held throughout debate. Speaker points."

Economic engagement is a phrase with many different meanings. I'm interested in how your interpretation creates a fair division of ground and promotes education about economic engagement toward the topic countries. It will be up to you to forward framework arguments here too. Reasonability vs. competing interpretations? Depth vs. Breath? Etc.
 * Topicality **

Textual competition is probably a good standard. Although I am not as ideologically tied to that as others (read: Hardy trained folks) are. I tend to err negative on most other counterplan theory questions. Although multiple conditional worlds is an argument that affirmative teams must forward to protect themselves sometimes. If there is an egregious example of in-round abuse that the affirmative packages and explains well, I will check in everytime. Again, most of this depends on your execution.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counterplans **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The best critiques engage the affirmative and either turn the case or frame out affirmative impacts. What does debate do? How does voting negative resolve the link? Alternative explanation and/or ballot framing is paramount here. In high school debates explanation tends to lack sophistication. I will reward you if you demonstrate that you have read the material beforehand and can set up the argument in cross-examination.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Critiques **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specificity is key. I am compelled to vote for contextual examples, in-depth refutation and historical examples. I reward specific strategies and research with higher speaker points. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">Quality over quantity. I appreciate the teams that can overwhelm the line by line with original insights or analysis that comes from a few (longer) cards. This applies to any quadrant of the ideological spectrum, from politics uniqueness to critique links <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">I will work very hard as a critic. My biggest pet-peeve when I debated were judges that didn't respect the time and effort that went into preparing for debates. I will be excited to judge you and provide (hopefully insightful) feedback. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Paperless transition of evidence will NOT be timed. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Alternative use time if all debaters want. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cutting cards during the debate is okay. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Receiving coaching is not. Or clipping cards. Or stealing an obnoxious amount of prep. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Be Nice.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Misc Notes **