Masslon,+John

John Masslon (updated 3/13/18) Years judging: 12

(Some of this stuff is stolen from other philosophies. I have only done so when I agree 100%.)

I am not a full-time educator and/or debate coach.Thus, although I am familiar with the topic and arguments being made, I am not nearly as familiar as those individuals who do this for a living.
 * __About Me __**


 * __Policy Debate __**

- If you like straight up policy debates, I'm a good judge for you. - If you like to go for a kritik in every 2NR, I should probably be in the middle of your pref list. - Strike me if you are a performance team.
 * Cliff Notes for Preffing **

It's unfortunate that we've come to a point where I need to put this at the top of my philosophy; however, teams that fully follow their ethical obligations are becoming all too rare. So here it is: - If you say “mark the card at x" you actually have to mark the card at x either during the speech or immediately afterwords and then provide a marked copy of your evidence to your opponent. It's your job to do that with or without prompting from your opponents. Failure to do so could result in a finding of clipping. - I follow the NDCA policy with respect to card clipping. I also follow the same procedure with respect to other ethics challenges. I will //sua sponte// intervene on obvious card clipping and evidence falsification. If the round is stopped //sua sponte// then the winning team will get the speaks they were going to get at that point in round. - You are (almost certainly) representing your school while debating. This means that if I see any shenanigans akin to what happened after the CEDA quarterfinals several years ago there will be major consequences. Such consequences may include, but are not limited to, a loss, 0 speaker points, informing tab, informing your principal/superintendent/school board, contacting the police/district attorney, etc.
 * Ethical Issues: **

- I won't allow alternative use time. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- If you want to negotiate for another critic to adjudicate the round and that person is OK with it and it won't harm the tournament, I'm fine with that. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I will intervene on the flow if a new argument is made in the 2AR because the negative doesn't have a chance to respond. Otherwise, it's your responsibility to tell me that an argument is new and why I should disregard such an argument. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I won't give double wins or all 30 speaks because it is unfair to the rest of the tournament. If you make such an argument your speaker points will be lowered. I'm not opposed to double losses. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I will disclose and give an oral critique if tournament rules don't prohibit the practice. I think this increases education.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Rules **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I am open to a variety of arguments: case, DAs, CPs, T, and Ks. To me the genre of your argument is less important than the question of its implications: explain those well in a manner that answers your opponents main claims and you’ll be in good shape. <span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I'll vote for stupid arguments, //e.g//., spark or timecube. If you can't beat those arguments then you deserve to lose. I lean heavily towards the tech end of the tech v. truth spectrum.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">General Philosophy: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Below are a list of defaults. Debaters can convince me to change any of my argumentation defaults other than my position on performance debate. If you ask debaters that have debated in front of me frequently, they'll likely tell you that I am at heart a judge that loves a DA/CP/case debate but that I will vote for other arguments. I just personally won't enjoy the round as much. I'd strongly urge against doing a 180 on your strategy because of these defaults unless you are a performance team. You will lose more by being uncomfortable than you will gain by conforming to my defaults.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I default to competing interpretations. Most T debates are won or lost on standards. Saying ground, fairness, brightline is not enough. You need to tell me why the ground you give to the aff and neg is best for debate, why your interpretation is fairer, and why a brightline is good for debate. Evidence helps here. If you are running ASPEC or something like that and you don't ask for clarification in cross-x you better explain to me why it advances debate to force such specification(s) in the plan text instead of having cross-x check abuse.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Topicality/Procedurals **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I default to a specific abuse claim rather than just pure offense/defense. Theory arguments should be as specific as possible in regard to both the argument and its relation to the round and/or topic. Tell me why to reject the team and not the argument. You won't get far reading your camp theory block in front of me. You need to be explaining why, if I adopt your approach to debate, the activity will be better and if I adopt the other team's approach debate will be worse off.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Theory: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I am open to all theory on them. That being said, I lean towards the neg on conditionality (although this decreases as the number of conditional arguments increases), PICs, 50 states, and international actors. I lean towards the aff on consult. I do expect that if you are running a CP that it is written down, either in soft or hard form. Too many teams don't do enough to articulate what their net benefit to the CP is. If you are trying to perm a CP, you need to do more than just say "perm do both." You need to explain to me why your perm solves. I will not judge kick the CP unless the neg asks me to. However, the aff can win that I should not judge kick the CP. If the neg kicks the CP I am open to the aff arguing that presumption still flips because the neg ran a CP; however, I default to presumption staying with the neg.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Counterplans: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I frequently vote on kritiks, but the chance of me having read the author(s) is 0. Kritiks should clearly explain what they mean, how they apply specifically to the plan or round, and why I should vote for them. Role of the ballot arguments are fine, but I need to know how they relate to the round or debate. I will find it very difficult to vote for an argument at the end of the debate that I do not really understand. I am not willing to tell the aff that they lost to an argument which I cannot explain somewhat to them at the end of the debate. Perming a K is like perming a CP, you need to do some work on that end as an aff to win by ballot.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Kritiks **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">DA flows are generally more persuasive when cards and warrants are extrapolated rather than giving me tagline extension or a card throw down. Storytelling will win or lose you the round here. Case debate has been heavily under-utilized, despite being a persuasive avenue for the ne g. I do believe there is such thing as 0 risk of a DA or advantage.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">DA/Case: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">In the past I voted for performance teams more often than I voted against them. However, I have decided that I will no longer vote for a performance team. The reason is simple. It is destroying debate. I don't want to be an accomplice to that destruction.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Non-traditional debate/projects/performance: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I don't care if you sit, stand, lay down, etc. during your speech. I mark down the last word spoken before time expires and that is all I will listen to. My clock is official (if I'm timing). If being prompted I don't listen to the prompts. I'm OK with speed but it needs to be clear. If you are not clear I will yell clear twice each speech. After that I quit flowing. I prefer that tags and cites be differentiated by your voice in some manner. If you are reading a list of standards, a definition, etc. use common sense and slow down a bit. CX is binding and I flow it if necessary. I like signposting. It makes my life easier. Making my life easier normally will make your life easier too.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Speaking: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- Have fun and enjoy yourself. Humor and good-natured fun will get you everywhere. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I penalize heavily if you try to steal prep time. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- You will get more speaker points for giving a 30 second 2R if that is all that is necessary to win than wasting 4:30 of my life. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- Your speaks will suffer if your partner is dominating your CX.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Speaker Points: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I highly prefer email chains or PADS sites unless it is somehow not feasible. Notwithstanding what is said below, if I think an email chain or PADS is feasible and you are flashing, prep won't end until both members of the other team have the speech doc up. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- Prep time is stopped after a) flash drive is on the way to your opponent; b) email has been sent ; or c) speech is posted on your PADS site. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I reserve the right to ask all speeches be flashed/emailed to me prior to the speech being given or at any time prior to making my decision. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- Technical failures will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Paperless: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- People underutilize analytical arguments. Some of the best arguments in a debate round won't have a card to back them up. Tell me why an internal link doesn't make sense or why the opposing team's cards should be given little weight. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- I am a huge believer in a good overview or underview from both the 2AR and the 2NR. I view the job of this speech to explain to me exactly why I should sign my ballot for that side. Too many teams just spew out responses and don't tell me why they should win the round. Anytime you make me do more work there is a smaller chance of you winning. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">- Sometimes a decision must be based on something said in a card when no other alternative is possible, but these situations are rare. This is when I call for cards. When I do so, I will not be pulling out warrants that were not talked about in round. As a related matter, I usually decide pretty quickly.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Misc: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">If you have any other questions just ask me through e-mail or in the halls. I will not be repeating this whole thing prior to a round but will answer specific questions.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">If you are reading cards, you need to actually give me an author or date or I consider it an analytical argument. I think public forum is different from policy debate (that is why it was created). I won't put up with kritiks or spreading in Public Forum. I will just decide whether or not the resolution is true (a form of hypothesis testing). This doesn't mean that I am opposed to "unique" arguments. I have heard some pretty awesome pros and cons that think outside the box. I obviously think evidence is important in a public forum round but it is not the be all end all. Communication skills will play some role in speaker points but debate skills play a much bigger role for me.
 * //__<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Other Forms of Debate __//**
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Public Forum __**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I used to be a very active member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and have been hired to serve as parliamentarian for a wide variety of organizations. I hold my presiding officers to a very high standard when I am serving as parliamentarian. When evaluating speakers I consider the following (from most important to least important): Analysis, Clash, Impact, Evidence, Style, Rhetoric, Questions, Extempore, Attitude.
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Congress __**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I am fine with speed. I am open both to traditional LD debate and to more progressive forms of LD. Because of this, I know I will judge lots of "clash of worlds" debates. In these types of debates, you need to explain to me why your version of LD debate is good for the activity. At the end of the day, I'll ask myself which debater convinced me that in 10 years I'll want to be judging LD debates under their set of rules instead of the other debater's rules.
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">LD __**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">In more traditional LD debates, I find that one of two things normally happens. First, debaters don't realize after the NC that the whole debate is going to be decided on framework and so we should essentially drop the contention level debate and just head straight to the framework debate for the rebuttals. Second, debaters don't realize that because of the contention level debate one side has the ability to win no matter who wins the framework debate and therefore we need to be on the contention level debate instead of the framework debate. This normally is an easy issue spotting exercise but people keep failing at it. If you are trying to win under your opponent's framework, you need to make this explicit in this speech and explain why.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">In more traditional LD debates, I greatly prefer to have all of the value and value criterion discussed together in the rebuttals because I flow them on one sheet. If you are going to go against this preference, I ask that you give be internal signposts so that I know that you have moved to/from the contention level debate to the value debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I believe there are are three types of resolutions in Parli, one that should be debated like policy, one that should be debated like LD, and one that should be debated like public forum. That is how I'll try to evaluate the round.
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Parli __**

__**<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">World Schools **__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">I will adjudicate who I believe won the round and then assign points, not vice versa. It should be evident that I'm a very flow oriented judge. I believe that if you don't extend an argument in a speech and the other side points that out then you can't bring that argument back up later in the debate. Make sure you let me know where you want me to flow stuff if you are not going line by line. I understand that in world schools debate there is much more general clash, but that clash must still go somewhere on my flow. I'd advise splitting the opposition block in some manner. I won't be happy if the opposition reply is just repetition of the third opposition. I'm a huge fan of models and counter-models; however, don't run them unless you know how to do so. I'll be mad if you speak when standing for a POI if the other team can easily see you. There is no need to do that.