Kephart,+John

DOF - Cal State Northridge

Competed: 8 years. Critic: 12 years

Last updated: 9-26-13

NOTE: This is my judging philosophy for college NDT-CEDA debate. Obviously, insert the highs school resolution when it mentions presidential war powers. I have judged sporadically on the HS circuit the last 2-3 years, but teach at HS summer institutes, which leads me to believe that some of this philosophy will not be applicable to HS debate. Rather than change it, I left everything in with the hope that you can find what you need from what I have here.

Feel free to ask questions if anything is unclear.

I had originally said that my judging philosophy is “tabula rasa – that if you run it, I will vote on it. Just make sure to give me a reason why.” However, judging over the years has caused me to rethink that position somewhat. I don't think anyone can actually be a blank slate. So, instead, I have included some ways that I approach debate/debating that may be helpful for your style. Don't work to change your style because you are debating in front of me. I will still listen to any type of argument. If you want to go CP and Politics with a huge case dump: solid. Are K arguments more your cup of tea? Go for it.

I will do my best to decide the debate how the debaters ask that I decide the debate. What I list below are my default positions, so absent any argumentation on the question, this is where I lean. This does NOT mean you will automatically pick up my ballot if your argument is in line with my default. If contested, you still need to win that your argument is true in the debate you are in, regardless of what I say here. I often vote against my own preferences.

 __** Fra **** mework/Performance/The Res **__ : I think that critical/kritical/howeveryouwantospellitical arguments are a valuable component to forensics - which means that I think that both the affirmative and the negative should be able to use critical arguments to generate offense.

Does that mean that I value critical arguments OVER “straight up” arguments? No. But what it does mean is that I default to believing that affs should get to use critical advantages to weigh against disads, and that negatives should get to run criticisms against the affirmative.

That being said, you can still have your realism good/PoMo bad debates versus the K. I have voted for “realism is inevitable – your K is idealistic and ineffective” about as often as I have voted for “your war impact claims are inevitable unless we criticize.”

I think a primary problem in a lot of these debates is that there is either no in-depth discussion of method (despite using the words "our/their method"), which leads to (a) no clear articulation by the aff as to what an aff vote accomplishes if we aren't passing a policy - just because you say the words "role of the ballot" doesn't mean you have explained what that role is and/or (b) how the neg arguments turn the aff if they aren't tied to political action outside of the debate as an end goal. Often, this results in a lack of clash where the aff says they don't need fiat, but don't say what they do need, and the neg says the activism the aff never really advocated will be bad activism. Some clear discussion of method and function of the advocacy in the round will not only generate clash, but make the resolution of the debate far easier.

It seems to be relevant to let folks know whether or not I read/have read critical theory for fun and/or profit. I have done both. My doctorate is in rhetoric, cultural studies, and gender studies, so I have read a fair amount of that literature. That does not mean that I default towards this lit, or that I am any more likely to value it over other forms of argumentation, just that I am fairly well versed in it. I actually don't hear as many disads as I would like.

My default position is that affirmatives have to defend the resolution. That is what it is there for – I do believe that topic specific education is good and finding creative ways to be topical stimulates critical thinking. I think it is entirely possible for affirmatives to be critical/perform and defend the resolution. This year, we should be talking about the president's war powers authority, and whether limiting that power would be a good thing in one of the areas mentioned to some degree in the debate.

Thus, framework arguments on both sides of the debate need to be well articulated and warranted. They should also include evidence.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Topicality **__ : Interpretations must be well articulated, and voters well explained. Potential for abuse is potentially a voter – debate it out. I enjoy well articulated T debates, but am often frustrated at the lack of comparison of impacts, or how standards/internal links relate to one another (i.e.: predictability v education). If you would like to win my ballot on T, explain these types of things. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Theory **__ : I don’t lean one way or the other on theory (Dispo/PICS/etc). I do have a pretty low threshold for conceded theory arguments that are well articulated, and will vote on them if they are there. I will not vote on them JUST because they are there – that is the “well articulated” part. If you are going for theory, you should not be going top speed. For contested theory I would say I have a medium threshold - not particularly high or low. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Disads **__ : I ran those. I will listen to them as well. I don't tend to think there is 100% defense, but I also can be persuaded to substantially mitigate that risk through both evidence and analytics. I often lament that there is no discussion of how the disad impacts relate to the case advantages. Generic links and turns can be made specific by analytics/discussion if well articulated - they can also be made irrelevant the same way. Which is really just my way of saying you should actually debate the link instead of competing over who can read more 2 line cards that are plan-adjacent. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Counterplans **__ : See disads and theory. I think artificial competition is an argument that has more utility than is currently being used. I also think that permutations should be more nuanced than "do both", but if the neg let's the aff get away with it, so be it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; display: block; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: #fefefe; display: block; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** General in-round/deciding issues: **__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Paperless **__ : While a great idea, tends to annoy me. I think debaters rely too much on the document jumped to them, and not enough on the debate as it is occurring. I won't be following along on the viewing computer - I still think it is the debaters' responsibility to speak to me as a critic. I also run your prep time until the other team can see your speech - so if that is e-mail/Dropbox link sent, or jump drive is out of your computer, your prep time is running until you have finished preparing and are able to speak.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">As a general rule, I don’t read very much evidence. I tend to read more evidence in out rounds, though not by much I flow parts of the evidence, and listen for warrants. I think it is the debaters’ job to explain what their evidence says. Merely extending a cite will be ineffective. If you demand that I read all of your evidence after the debate, I almost certainly won’t. I usually call for cards when (a) there is a dispute about what the evidence says (b) I don’t believe the debaters are explaining the evidence/interpretation/plan text correctly (c) there is evidence on both sides of a question that is explained by both teams and I need to resolve it or (d) I want cites.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Similarly, evidence is good, but so are well articulated analytics. I think we rely too much on having cards for arguments instead of making smart, well reasoned arguments for why something is or is not true.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;"> __** Tech v truth **__ :I am not totally flow centric - if an argument is answered in the debate, but not necessarily on the particular line that the original argument was made, I will tend to give it to you. However, that presumes that you have articulated such a response. While I don't keep a strict hi-tech flow, I will also not connect the dots for you. If your evidence/analytic answers an argument elsewhere on the flow, or responds to a class of argument (e.g.: Perception links), say so.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">** __Style:__ ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Speed is fine, with clarity. I will warn you twice. After that, I will stop flowing you. Cross-ex doesn't have to be exclusively the person whose CX it is, but it should be primarily that person's CX. Which basically just means let your partner ask/answer a few questions.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 1.5;">I can’t stand people being rude or overly obnoxious in debates. If you are too rude or combative, racist, sexist, or homophobic, I will adjust your speaker points accordingly.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">New biggest pet peeve: Saying "this is uncontested" or "They dropped this argument" when the other team didn't, in fact, drop the argument or leave it uncontested. I would be surprised if you get higher than a 27.1 if you make this argument in front of me.