Harvey,+Brett

I'm an attorney and volunteer assistant coach for a team coached by my wife. In high school, I debated Lincoln-Douglas locally. In college, I did four years of parliamentary. My recent judging experience runs about 50% LD, 40% CX, 10% PF.

I don't believe there is such a thing as true tabula rasa judging. That said, I try to limit my intervention in the round to those points I believe either (1) are beyond any serious dispute; or (2) appear to have been tacitly agreed to by the debaters. So for example, if your card says millions die, but doesn't say why mass death is bad, I'm inclined to make that inference for you absent a particularly compelling contrary argument from your opponent. However, the less intuitive your argument is, or the more it seems to skew the ground in your favor, the fewer inferences I will draw. In short --actual recent example here-- if you want me to believe that X will anger China and thus result in nuclear conflict, you're going to have to do better than reading a card saying "China doesn't like X" and a card saying "China is keeping its options on the table." I will not infer the link between "options on the table" and nuclear war. I will try to give you credit for whatever impact a generally angry China might yield, but I won't slavishly assume whatever terminal impact you tell me.

On a related note, I require complete arguments before I will give credit for offense in the round. Claims without warrant are not arguments. Claims with warrants that don't match up are, at best, arguments for whatever the warrant actually says--which may not be of any help to you. I generally will try to err on the side of non-intervention and wait for your opponent to argue that your warrants don't link up, etc., but if the disconnect between card and claim is painfully obvious, I reserve the right to give no credit without prompting.

Also, claiming that an argument "comes before fiat" or "comes before the resolution" necessarily asks me to step outside the game of debate and take real world action for a greater good. Consequently, these arguments abandon any entitlement to tabula rasa judging. I put most kritiks (i.e., true kritiks, not disads masquerading as kritiks) and debate theory arguments into this category, at least to the extent they ask me to act as a rulemaker, send a message to the debate community, or otherwise take action aimed at changing the real world. I have no reservations about rejecting these arguments on my own initiative, particularly where they seem unfair, disingenuous or designed to ambush the opponent. In particular, if you open the door to extra-resolutional rulemaking and then decide to play games that I feel are designed to limit your opponent's access to meaningful debate competition --half a dozen blippy theory arguments, etc.--I may use the extra-resolutional powers you have so kindly conferred to vote you down on that basis alone.

I am not a big fan of spread delivery, but I recognize that it's a part of CX debate and won't penalize you for it. I just ask that you slow down a bit on key tag lines. If you don't, and they don't make it on to my flow, you have no one to blame but yourself. In LD, I rarely see debates in which --at the end of the round-- I feel like speed added anything. I can flow it, and I won't penalize you for using it, but if it impairs your ability to reason through arguments, it will at minimum cost you a couple of speaker points. In PF, it should go without saying that spread delivery is an express ticket to a loss and very low speaker points. On that note, I tend to average speaker points of 27/30 in solid varsity rounds, but I am not at all hesitant to give 29's or even 30's to debaters who offer actual insight that makes my job easier.

Finally, two things. First, be civil to one another. By all means, be aggressive. Tell me where your opponent is dead wrong and why they can't win the round. But never confuse aggressive advocacy with rudeness or a lack of basic respect. Second, have fun. Most people claim to judge purely on the flow, but if we're honest, we have to admit that at the margin we tend to favor debaters who let us enjoy judging. If you're having fun --while showing proper respect and strong reasoning-- I'm probably having fun, too. And as a result, you have a better chance of getting my ballot.