Tashma,+Josh

Glenbrook North High School '14 Vanderbilt University '18

Quick version: I aim to decide debates in the most technical, least interventionist manner within reason. Tech over truth. Kritiks are fine as long as they don't involve the identity, privilege, or personal experiences of individuals participating in the round.

Long version: There's a threshold for what constitutes an argument that can be evaluated in a technical fashion. Generally speaking, coherent arguments have claims and warrants. It's in your best interest to implicate your arguments to dictate how I assess the related aspect of the debate. If completely new arguments are made in the 1AR or 2NR, it’s your burden to call the other team out on them and explain why they should be rejected. If completely new arguments are made in the 2AR, I won’t assess them.

Run whatever you want (with the exception of identity-based arguments, see below). Some arguments are obviously easier to defend and win than others, but I have no qualms against voting for what are generally considered to be terrible arguments. This doesn't mean you should automatically pull out your backfile process counterplan, but if you can out-tech the other team on these type of arguments then I have no bias against voting for them.

After judging at a few tournaments this year, I've noticed two major areas where debaters tend to make incredibly shallow arguments that are difficult to evaluate even if they are conceded. The first area is cheap shot theory arguments. I'll vote on them if they're conceded and make sense, but the words "voting issue" alone are generally not sufficient for me to abandon every other argument in the debate to vote for you. You don't have to do much, but please very briefly warrant why it's a voting issue (in-round abuse, precedent, etc.). The second area is kritiks. Extending and explaining all of your kritik cards is a nice FYI about some philosophical topic but doesn't prove why the aff is a bad idea. From experience, I would say that I am a great judge for teams that do a nice job of contextualizing their link arguments to the aff and possibly the worst judge for teams that don't talk about the aff.

I try to avoid reading evidence whenever possible. I generally only call for cards when it’s absolutely necessary to assess a technical issue (i.e. disagreement over what evidence says). Debaters make arguments. Evidence supports those arguments. A warranted extension of average evidence is better than than a tagline extension of good evidence.

Default assumptions that immediately go away when called into question: no judge kick (2NR/2AR not too late to debate this), presumption goes toward less change, I am primarily concerned with the consequences of plan passage, perms are a test of competition

Assuming they’re coherent (see above), non-identity-based critical arguments (on the aff and neg) are fine. I probably know your kritik, but you should still err toward explaining your arguments as if I’ve never heard them. I’ll always determine who won framework first and decide the rest of the debate through that lens. Most “tricks” are obviously dumb but if conceded can be easy ways to win rounds.

There are certain circumstances where I believe judges should intervene to prevent debaters from being personally harmed in a debate round (at least at the high school level). My one ideological view that governs how I judge debates pertains to arguments that directly involve the personal experiences, identity, or privilege of a participant in a round. I could go on a long rant about this, but I think my opinion is best explained by Michael Greenstein in his Fall 2014 Rostrum article: "In every single debate, there is a winner and a loser. This means that in every debate about personal experience, a judge votes against someone's identity, oppression, and potential life struggle... No educator would put their students in a situation that is potentially damaging to their emotions." Just as most judges would punish other offensive actions such as extreme racial slurs or physical violence, making an argument along these lines will result in an immediate loss for the offending team. If there aren't any prefs and you're stuck with me, you should relish the opportunity to benefit from the pedagogical value of switch side debate.

Do what you’re best at, and if you do that well then you’ll be rewarded with regards to speaker points. Unless you've said something offensive, the arguments you run will never negatively affect your speaker points. While well-researched, specific strategies may make you seem smart and have a positive effect on speaker points, being able to win an uphill battle and crushing on a bad argument can be just as impressive. Staking the round on smart, strategic decisions will likely result in higher speaker points. Of course, clarity and persuasion matter. Humor can help as well.

If you believe the other team has cheated (clipping, anything else that violates academic integrity, etc.), stop the round and initiate an ethics challenge. Have evidence. You'll get generous points if you successfully call out cheating.

Have fun! Feel free to ask questions.