Schneider,+Josh


 * Background:** I'm a former high school debater and former assistant coach at Hillsborough High School (Tampa, FL). I've been judging LD since 1996 (though less frequently in recent years).


 * Note:** Some of these things may seem obvious to you. Sadly, they're not obvious to everyone, hence the explanations.

=Lincoln-Douglas Debate=

My approach to LD
I believe in traditional LD; if you want to debate policy, do policy debate. There is no "status quo" in LD, and there are no "plans"; for a resolution //R//, the affirmative must argue in support of //R//, and the negative must argue in support of //~R//. Both sides therefore carry a burden of production—to offer a value, a criterion that operationalizes the value, and sufficient analysis to show that //R// or //~R// (as appropriate) upholds the value as operationalized—and a burden of persuasion—to convince me that you've done all of the above. (The proper interpretation of //R// is a question to be settled in the round but must result in a fair division of ground.) Clash is mandatory; this is //debate//, not dueling oratory.

How I judge
I look first to the value clash and frameworks to determine the standard by which to weigh the round, then I determine who best upholds that standard. I write ballots that are terse but that can still be understood after the tournament. I usually devote half of the ballot to comments to the debaters and the other half to the RFD. Do not expect praise for doing what is expected of you, though I will point out things you did particularly well. I will especially note arguments that I didn't buy, that a sharper opponent could refute easily, or that are particularly idiotic and/or obnoxious (I promise to be constructive on the actual ballot). Multiple question marks denote a serious blunder. A comment in a heavy black box means that you //really// messed something up and I think your coach needs to address it with you.


 * Oral critiques.** I generally don't give oral critiques even when they're allowed. If I give an oral critique, I will focus almost exclusively on each side's weak points so that you know what to address in the remaining rounds (in other words, don't take it personally). I //never// disclose.


 * Speaker points.** In my view, they're called //speaker// points and not //debater// points for a reason. I base my decisions on the key arguments and my points on effective communication (note that failure to clash is a failure of effective communication). My typical score range is 23 to 28; you will have to dazzle me to get a 30. Failing to treat other participants in the round with dignity and respect will get you the lowest score the tournament staff will allow me to give.

Preferences

 * Speed.** I prefer a moderate pace, perhaps slightly quicker than typical conversational speed. I do not consider speed heavily in my decisions //except inasmuch as speed impedes effective communication//, and I will not vote against a debater solely for excessive speed, though I won't hesitate to reduce speaker points. That said, if I can't flow you because of your speed, I won't continue flowing until you slow down. Full stop.


 * Cases and arguments.** I always expect a value and criterion, and I consider frameworks and criteria to be major considerations in judging the round. If you're dependent on a narrative or you're running a plan, counterplan, kritik, topicality, prima facie/a priori, or debate theory argument, you're wasting your time.


 * Definitions and observations.** Because each side has an obligation in LD (no voting on presumption), each side is entitled to a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Those interpretations should be put forth through definitions and, //if absolutely necessary//, observations. The affirmative must do this in the AC or cede the opportunity to the negative. The negative may propose alternatives in the NC; otherwise, the affirmative's interpretation controls. //See also// "Abuse" below.


 * Examples and evidence.** Examples are usually helpful. Sound analysis is almost always helpful. Empirical evidence is far less helpful and is rarely necessary. I make it a point to flow arguments rather than simply cards, and I specifically don't flow authors; you should adjust your delivery and your signposting accordingly. I will give an additional speaker point to anyone who uses a relevant, accurate, and properly cited quotation from Stephen Colbert (consider it a credit for reading carefully).


 * Rebuttals and crystallization.** I'm more likely to give the ballot to you if you write the ballot for me. I expect voting issues in the NR and 2AR, even at the expense of a line-by-line. I prefer voters at the end of the speech but am willing to hear them as you move down the flow provided they're adequately signposted. I have no problem with debate jargon in rebuttals, though I strongly advise you to think twice before calling something a turn (you turn contentions or //maybe// subpoints, not evidence or cards).


 * Communication skills.** They matter. I can't flow what I can't understand, and I'd like your nonverbal communication to help indicate what you consider important (and therefore what you think I should consider important), particularly if there's so much going on in the debate that your voting issues won't get the time they deserve.


 * Abuse.** I despise abuse (including unreasonable claims that the other side is abusive) and will make it a voting issue //sua sponte// if necessary. You're entitled to a reasonable interpretation of the resolution; the corollary is that you're //not// entitled to an //un//reasonable interpretation. However, it's up to the opponent to call out the abuse and to put forth a non-abusive alternative definition, observation, etc. (Also, while this isn't technically "abuse" so much as sheer stupidity, it's similar enough that I'll put it here: in the unlikely event that your opponent's case is non-resolutional, call him/her on it and offer something resolutional—this isn't the same as running T, so don't use this as an excuse to do so—and you'll probably win.)

Round Mechanics

 * Timekeeping,** I will time speeches and will stop flowing when your speech time ends. I will also keep the official record of prep time for the round. To encourage you to roadmap quickly, I always charge roadmaps to your speaking time. I will do my best to give you time signals, but I'm sure you'd rather I focus on your arguments rather than my stopwatch.


 * Cross-examination.** I listen to CX but don't flow (I'm usually writing case comments on the ballot), so whatever you got out of your opponent had better go into the next speech if you want me to consider it.


 * Computers.** If you're using one, you should know the rules by now. There will be no electronic exchange of documents during the round apart from holding up your laptop or tablet for your opponent to view. In LD, this is basically going to be your cases, so you can always just hand over the hard copies //that you carry with you in case your computer dies, right?//


 * Standing.** I will not listen to or flow a seated debater, with the obvious exception for reasonable accommodations.