Speer,+Mike

Mike Speer Berkeley Preparatory School Tampa, FL

It is possible that I was a reasonably good judge once upon a time, but that time has passed. At this stage of my life, I do the best I can to understand the events that unfolding in debates that I judge. I try to render a reasoned-based decision that focuses on the arguments and evidence presented in the debate. I will NEVER vote for an argument that I don’t understand. You understand everything that you are saying but I only understand some fraction of what you are saying. The faster you go, the less I understand. Not every argument in a debate round is equally important. If an argument is important, slow down and make sure that I am with you. If the debate hinges on a single sentence uttered in the middle of your last rebuttal, do us both a favor and make sure that you know that I know how important that sentence is.

While I would like to be a careful, flow-oriented judge, I am almost certainly not keeping up with you. I do not worship at the altar of the quotation. Since debaters often do not read the qualifications of their sources, there is not much reason to prefer “Smith, ’07, says….” to the well-reasoned logic of a bright, young scholar standing before me. If you have an argument to make, make it. Do not be deterred by the lack of a quotation. Frankly, some of the “evidenced” arguments debaters make strain credulity to the breaking point. That said, the slow down on the tags and race through the card idea, is nonsense. An argument requires three parts - claim, data, and warrant. If I cannot understand the evidence that you are offering in support of your claim, you have not made an argument.

In almost 40 years of judging I don't recall ever stopping a debater in the middle of his or her speech. I will listen to what you have to say. However, debates that focus on intimate questions of personhood and identity make me very uncomfortable. I worry about the emotional toll that might be inflicted on a high school student, having entered a tournament purportedly on a topic of federal government public policy if he or she should feel compelled to engage in a debate on matters of identity and personhood. I revel in the emotional distance that is typically associated with dry and technical discussions of public policy. I like antiseptic debates where ideas on manipulated like chess pieces on a game board. I get that this is old school.

I am generally willing to suspend disbelief for the purposes of allowing you to play the debate game. In my opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do not be afraid to play thoughtful defense. A well-played “no link” argument is a thing of beauty. I like arguments that show a sophisticated understanding of issue at hand. My preference is for fewer deeper arguments than for numerous superficial arguments.

Skillful cross examination is important. Answers in cross-ex are probably binding. Most things in debate, past time limits and speaking order, are debatable. Cross-ex is a great place to earn speaker points. Open cross examination is fine, but everyone should have their turn to ask and answer questions.

Topicality/Theory – I will default to a competing interpretations version of topicality, but I am open to other approaches if they are well argued. Potential abuse is not usually a persuasive argument for me. Make the arguement, draw out the other team's abusive response and then demonstrate actual abuse. Of course, the affirmative is presumptively topical. The negative will have to win that the aff’s approach to the topic is bad for the activity. Don’t bother arguing that T is a reverse voter. At the end of the round, if I am convinced that the aff's approach to the activity is bad for debate, the aff will lose the debate.

Disads/Case debates – a time honored tradition. As James Carville says, “don’t complicate the simple.” If you can beat them on their own ground, go for it. Watching a negative debater who knows more about the aff case than the aff team is very cool. With disads I try to play close attention to the link and internal link story. I tend not to be persuaded by the "any risk" kind of links. Negatives should make an effort to demonstrate the probability that the disadvantage impact will result. Counterplans – the first test of a counterplan is competition. If the affirmative posits one or more permutations (they almost always should, and do) I want to know exactly what each permutation does. "Perm, do the counterplan" sounds to me like the affirmative is surrendering. If the arguement is that the CP and the affirmative are the same, then the affirmative should say that. If the argument is that the counterplan alone is better than the affirmative plan, that's pretty close to the definition of a negative victory. Critiques - explain what my ballot does and make clear how the criticism is to be weighed in the deciding the outcome of the round. Critiques come in many forms so it is more difficult to formulate hard fast rules for arguing critiques. I am not familiar with much of the critical literature. That means, if you make a criticism the core of your strategy, you have to be prepared to teach me about it. Teaching cannot take place at 300 words per minute. Some practical advice about critical arguments. Make sure your tags are "flow friendly" and clear. If framework is to be a part of the debate, the team that initiates the argument must make the effort to be sure that I have made the transition from the critique proper to the framework or vice versa.