Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17
Georgetown University '21
Put me on the email chain: dwbdebate@gmail.com
Judging Habits of Mine:
--Smart and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and stupid impact arguments.
--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me."
--Terminal impacts and impact defense factor into my decisions less than most judges. Impact comparison still matters to me, but only insofar as you can prove a clear link that connects to that impact. Over focus on terminal impact comparison at the expense of link analysis is an easy route to lose my ballot.
--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much in most every debate I judge. I do not tend to find this sweeping argument particularly persuasive, as it is usually invoked as a substitute for robust debating on link analysis and as a way of avoiding comparative analysis of impacts. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (such as poverty, disease, economic collapse, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.
--Although my academic and career experience is primarily policy oriented, I am likely a better judge for the K than you would expect. I have spent time thinking through these arguments, reading relevant literature, and coaching teams to go for Ks. As a general rule, I enjoy when teams grapple with the underlying premises of their worldviews, which is often best captured through a K.
Operating Procedure:
--I flow on paper
--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. This is mostly because I think my flow will be harmed substantially if I am flowing from your doc and not writing down full arguments. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge
--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.
--"Insert this rehighlighting" is acceptable in some instances and not others. I struggle to articulate a clear rule for this, but I tend to think inserting is legit when you are pointing out why the other team misconstrued or miscut their evidence. If you want to make a new argument (eg a new advantage CP from their evidence) you should read the rehighlighting.
Theory Issues/CPs
--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.
--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.
--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's
--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan
--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments
--Limited intrinsicness can be very good
Ks
--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration.
--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.
No Plan/K Affs
--I will vote for these affs.
--I will enjoy it more when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly the role for the negative team.
Pet Peeves:
--Do NOT read disinformation and actual "fake news." In my experience, debate has done a good job staying away from far-right conspiracies but has a weird obsession reading cards from authoritarian state-run propaganda outlets. I will be grumpy if you read evidence from the following sources: SputnikNews, RT, TASS, GlobalTimes, People's Daily, etc.
--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.