Alderete,+Tim

Judging Philosophy - Tim Alderete -The Meadows School

"If nobody hates you, you are doing something wrong." - Dr. House

Time before a round is Limited - you usually can't read the Whole Philosophy -the first part is the Short Version, the second part is if you have time to read it all.

Please add me to email chains. timalderete@yahoo.com

__**First Part - Short / Pre Round Version**__

-I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence. This probably means you think I’m “Interventionist.” -I am not the best judge for Bad Theory. This is the area where my “minimum standard” gets used the most. -I don’t inflate speaker points. To offset my low speaker point range, I offer incentives for flowing. -I have often voted for kritikal affirmative and negative arguments -I will try to flow almost any intelligible speed and I will call "Clearer" if I don't understand you. -I will vote on Defensive arguments. -I am quickly losing my patience with Prep Time Theft. -I strongly distrust evidence that isn't shared via a USB or email.

__**Second Part - Longer Version**__

Initially - I don't think that many people describe accurately how they judge. This is how I think I judge, but it is always better to ask Other people how I judge - they may have more accurate information.


 * Speaker Points** – My speaker point range: 26 (Bad), 27 (Decent), 27.5 (Pretty Good), 28.0 (Very Good), 28.5 (Outstanding). 29.0 and above are saved for the most exceptional speakers – I have only given 3 people over a natural 29.0 in the last five years. I recognize that this range is lower than many judges. My Reason for my range is based upon my 25 years judging well over 3000 rounds at the high school and college levels – I am probably harder to impress than most judges. I have thought about changing my range, but I have chosen not to inflate speaker points, for the same reason that I chose not to inflate grades – it gives me no way to rate truly exceptional debaters, and doesn’t let fair to middling debaters know that they need to improve.

However, I Have chosen to augment points with incentives. If you keep a good flow, and show it to me after the round, I will give you up to an additional speaker point if I agree that it is a good flow. I do this to encourage flowing and organization. If you do not steal Any prep time during the debate and practice good USB/Paperless norms, I will give you extra points. (Note: I have never had to implement this one...) Remember that once I have entered my E-Ballot online, I cannot change your points, so you must Ask before I turn the ballot in.


 * The Theory** – Good theory arguments are essential to prevent abusive practices by teams. Good theory is one aspect of debate that makes our activity unique, because it gives students a sense of empowerment as they control the rules of the game. Theory arguments are sometimes your only option – your “Plan B” – and I respect debaters who recognize and utilize their most strategic options. Bad Theory arguments make it harder for me to take Good Theory arguments seriously, because if everything is a voting issue, then nothing is. I think that currently, Bad Theory is drowning out Good Theory. I admit that there is no precise line or list dividing the two, and I won’t “Automatically Intervene” against arguments that I think are Bad, and I Often vote against my “defaults” or “preferences” on Theory. I will Try to take your Theory arguments as seriously as you do, but at a fundamental level, It is Harder to Convince me of a Dumb argument than a Good argument.

For the most part, debaters do a bad job of justifying that arguments are a reason to vote against a debater, rather than to drop an argument. Debaters too often conflate “Bad Debate Practice” with “Abusive Practices.” Too often, debaters focus on comparing fairness and education as terminal impacts, rather than focusing on the Link Magnitude and Probability of your theory arguments. Too often people overcommit, or go all-in, on theory too early in the debate. I believe that good theory can/should drown out Bad theory. Because that is such an imprecise line, I will try to give you some examples, so that you can see what my proclivities are:

Bad Theory – "Affirmative Framework Choice" – this, Literally, Argues that Argument is Bad “No Solvency Advocate = You Lose” – this is a solvency press, not a theory argument. “PICs must have one card which advocates the Action it takes and Advocates Not taking the Action it PICs out of” – like above, but Waaay more silly. “I cannot turn your theory argument, so you lose.” – Fundamental misunderstanding of how arguments work. "You didn't say which off-case comes first - that's a voter" - Sigh. “Topicality is a Reverse Voting Issue” – No, it isn’t. “You lose because you put your Role of the Ballot on the Bottom, not the Top, of the AC.” – Stunning. “You lose because you ran both theoretical and substantive justifications for your framework” – Really?! “You didn’t number your Spikes = You lose.” – Strike me. Seriously.

Good Theory – Whole Resolution / Plans Bad Truth Testing vs Competing Worlds Role Playing Policymakers vs Discourse Conditionality PICs Good/Bad (only run against Counterplans, not against Plans or the Resolution… Just FYI)

**Offense and Defense** – Offensive arguments are good because they give you options and they pressure the other debater. Defensive arguments are good because they often are necessary complements to offensive arguments, and because they are often the strongest logical flaws against a position. The idea that Defensive arguments alone cannot take out a position is misguided. "Offense/Defense" is a useful teaching concept but it is often misapplied as a debate argument or comparison, most often on theory. It is not an excuse to avoid responding to Link answers or Violation Answers or Counter standards. I am easier to convince than most judges that there is No Case, No Violation or No Interpretation. I rarely default to "There is always some risk." I evaluate impact calculus After I decide whether you have won an argument, not before (or instead of) it. I do not see "Defensive" arguments as being weaker arguments. An Intelligent Defensive argument is better than a Poor Offensive argument. I am willing to vote on Defensive arguments that take out the entirety of a case or the entirety of a Theory argument. It may be a high Threshold, but there is a Threshold.


 * Kritiks** - Good Kritik debates are some of the best debates that I have judged. They are interesting, creative, demand challenging case specific research, and respond to core issues and assumptions raised by the Affirmative. Bad Kritik debates are some of the worst debates that I have judged. They avoid engaging the debate either through obscure jargon or shallow procedurals, or conflate kritiks with other arguments, or are hopelessly generic. I think that kritiks often balance well the philosophical and the political in LD – as such, I think that LD has been “Doing Kritiks” for decades, without calling the arguments kritiks. I think that it is a mistake to conflate all discourse arguments with “Micropolitical Activism” – they are not always synonyms.


 * Prep Time** – LD has not developed norms or practices for sharing paperless evidence. This causes a substantial waste of time, which extends or moots prep time limits. At a minimum, I have these expectations:

-Debaters must provide a USB or Email copy of every card they read to their opponent prior to the speech. Paper copies can be handed to them as they are read. -Reading over someone’s shoulder is NOT a sufficient substitute – it is a major distraction, interferes with flowing, and it means one person will not be able to use their computer -The Cases, Disads, frontlines, evidence, etc. must All be in One word document, rather than spread out over multiple documents. -Prep time should end when you hand the USB to the opponent. -You may time yourself, but only My time is official. -Why wouldn't you use Microsoft Word? -I strongly distrust evidence that isn't shared via a USB or email. I realize that some teams have a policy against sharing speeches via USB. Those teams either already strike me, or should.


 * Policy** – I have coached both Policy and LD – although I have focused on Policy for years. While I have judged a substantial amount of LD, my judging will always, inevitably, be influenced by my Policy background. Because of that:

-I hold debaters responsible for high quality evidence. -I am familiar with Counterplan, Kritik and Topicality positions and burdens. -I “can handle” The Speed. -I have a lower point range. -I reward strategic choices, and believe that Diverse Options are good. -I don’t like Disclosure games – Although Don’t take this to mean I want to hear Disclosure theory… -I will disclose decisions after the debate. I am not used to disclosing points, but I am not opposed to it.

I am usually loud and long winded when explaining decisions - I am not trying to be mean, just loud. I do enjoy judging a lot, even if I appear intimidating. In general, I will flow pretty much any intelligible speed. I will consider pretty much any intelligent argument.