Stewart,+Clay

= = Clay Stewart Judging Wiki (Created July 30, 2011)

---Pre-NDCA 2018 Notice---
For the last several years, I have been coaching on the college policy circuit while attending graduate school at the University of Georgia. While I have a much more extensive LD background than many policy folks in the pool, __this means I have not judged/ coached LD recently.__ Do not expect me to be familiar with the latest developments in the meta-game, the latest Framework spikes/ tricks, the topic, etc. While this may not matter to some styles of debate, those that are unique to LD (e.g. fast/ tricky theory debates) may want to proceed with caution. __**That does not mean I have some sort of ideological bias against those arguments,**__ __just that I have not thoughts about NIBs, Bostrom Good/ Bad, or Coherentism recently.__ It's a national championship be smart, debate strategically, and don't overadapt.

Debate Experience
Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local/ National Circuit) Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate, Georgia State University (Starting with the 2011-2012 Democracy Assistance Topic)

Judging Experience
Rounds Judged: 172 (as of April 2015)

Coaching Experience
Lincoln-Douglas Debate: 4 Years (Local/ National Circuit) Policy Debate: 3 Years (Graduate Assistant University of Georgia)

--General Preferences -

 * __Overview (a.k.a. tl;dr):__**

Debate is a game; my strongest belief as a judge is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. While I'm mostly familiar with policy-style arguments, __**I will pull the trigger on any argument that is successfully won in a debate, whether that's Ashtar, a performative methodology based on race, or NIBs.**__ Read whatever you like at whatever speed you like, and, so long as you're clear, we'll be good to go. I am probably better at judging well-carded debates about substance, but, like I said, I will pull the trigger on anything. Unless told otherwise by either of the debaters, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

__**Theory/ Topicality:**__

Not my strongest point as a judge; I grew up as a debater without theory, and college policy norms are much more simple/ lax about the theory debate. **__That does not, however, mean that you should not run theory if that's your thing/ there's actual abuse/ it's the most strategic way out of the round.__** Given the way theory arguments tend to go down, with both the 1NC and 1AC extending theory spikes out of the constructives, and, if applicable, cross-applying them to the theory off-case, the easiest thing you can do to win my ballot on theory is to slow down and give an overview at the top of the NR/ 2AR that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line. __**I have no default conception of how theory functions, it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Frame it the way you want it evaluated.**__


 * __Framework:__**

I'm familiar with most normal framework authors, but I'm not as deeply read on the analytic philosophy side of things as I am on the K. If you're reading something super complicated, make sure you clearly explain it throughout the debate. I think substantive framework debate is underutilized as a strategic tool to exclude your opponent's offense, and I appreciate well-thought out/ strategic frameworks, especially if they're from a unique branch of philosophy.


 * __Traditional LD Arguments/ Traditional Debaters:__**

I debated primarily on the local circuit during high school, despite attending national circuit tournaments. I am completely fine with a traditional round. If that means that you're a local circuit debater competing at a circuit tournament or you're a circuit debater who prefers traditional cases, that's fine with me.


 * __Policy Arguments in LD (CP/ DA):__**

Go for it. Just be prepared to defend your approach. __**I love tricky counterplans/ well-researched DA strategies.**__ I think that most LD'ers don't utilize permutations enough, and that Affirmatives should laugh at Negative DA strategies that haven't been updated in months.


 * __Kritiks:__**

__**I like Kritiks, and think that they're underutilized in LD. I've read a decent amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. This does not, however, mean that I am going to vote for the Kritik because I like the position/ ideology you're running. I will just as easily vote you down on theory as pick you up to embrace whatever-being.**__ I am also open to approaching the theory/ topicality debate in the context of your kritik (e.g.- if your opponent's epistemology is inevitably flawed, it seems really stupid for me to vote you down because of offense linking to an education voter on the theory debate). An easy way to lose the debate, when running the Kritik in front of me, is to functionally disregard your opponent's framework. If your opponent runs a contractarianism 1AC, your infinite replication of violence/ no VTL impacts probably aren't an applicable impact for me to evaluate. The easiest way to win your kritik in front of me, given this sort of situation, is to explain why your kritik precludes your opponent's framework or attack your opponent's underlying assumptions as defense (a.k.a. epistemology impacts are helpful in LD).


 * __Performance/ Project Teams:__**

__**I'm fine with whatever you want to do in a debate round. As someone who spent a semester reading a performative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate.**__ However, that does not mean that I will vote for you because you performed/ said the debate community was structurally flawed; I judge these debates, unless told otherwise, like every other debate, and I expect well-reasoned/ well-carded arguments just like I would from any other debater. Moreover, while I appreciate the personal nature of these debates, I think that debaters occasionally use that as an excuse to attack their opponents in unjustified ways. For debaters facing this style of argument, I think that the normal LD bag of tricks is not the best strategy, and probably is a huge link to whatever your opponent is saying; trying to out-left your opponent with a K is probably a better option.


 * __Speaker Points:__**

I give higher speaker points than most judges, because I think that the debate community has forgotten how awesome it is that the person spreading the 1AC/ 1NC and doing complex meta-ethical/ critical analysis beyond the capacity of many adults is in high school. If you are a top-tier, varsity debater with a well-executed strategy, you will likely get a 30. Outside of that, here's how speaker points break down:

27: This is pretty much the lowest I go. It was a really bad round and your strategy was just not tactically thought out/ it was clear you just didn't care what happened.

28: My default setting. You were an average Varsity debater.

29: You were a good Varsity debater, and I expect you to clear. You had.good in-round visions/ strategic thinking, and gave a solid performance.

30: I was impressed by your performance and expect you to clear. There were no tactical mistakes that I could see, or, if there was one, it was minor at best.


 * __Computer Issues/ In-Round Issues:__**

I'm understanding of computer issues. I'll stop my timer and we'll wait a normal period of time for you to get your computer fixed. The same is true with in-round issue (i.e.- you have a coughing spell, are exceedingly nervous or stuttering, or you lose a flow). I'm an understanding person. We'll stop the clock, resolve the issue/ wait an appropriate amount of time.

Good luck/ Have fun.

Post-Emory 2015 Update
__**Ethics Violations:**__

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), it became quickly apparent that certain norms I take for granted regarding ethics violations have not transferred from college policy to the Lincoln-Douglas community. As a result, I feel it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. __**While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:**__


 * 1) __Stop the debate.__** I will give the accusing debater a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.


 * 2)** __**Consult the Tabroom**__ to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.


 * 3) __Review available evidence__** to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. __I **am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven gui****lty . Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.**__


 * 4) __Drop the Debater.__** If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending debater, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the debater who originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the debater being accused.