Chicago Debate League Judge Philosophy Form
Name____Nicholas Johnson______Appx. No. of rounds judged this year ___35___
Affiliation/Profession______Coach: Marshall______Number of years in debate ___11___
Any schools/debaters you should be blocked from ______Marshall______
1. When it comes to knowing debate jargon (counterplan, disadvantage, permutation, inherency, etc.), I consider myself
1 23 45
Still learning: try to limit jargonFairly comfortable, but with advanced debate theory, be carefulVery comfortable with debate jargon: don’t worry
You may also assume I am at least somewhat familiar with the language of critical literature, and very comfortable with scientific jargon.
2. I ______fast debates.
1 23 45
Dislike Am indifferent to Enjoy
3. In the CDL, judges may ask for evidence after a debate. In making my decision, I
1 23 45
Never read evidenceOccasionally read evidence Frequently read evidence
I read cards if the content of the card is disputed, or if the claims of the card are critical to resolving an issue in the round. Debaters who ask me to read particular cards will increase my likelihood of doing so.
4. While the debate is taking place, debaters should:
1 23 45
Ignore my nonverbal expressionsWatch for occasional non-verbalsPay attention—I have expressive non-verbals
(nonverbal expressions include: smiling, nodding, frowning, shaking head, putting pen down, etc.)
I do not intentionally use non-verbal signals, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant. You might gain useful information. Of course, frowning, for example, could just mean I'm thinking about the claim made, and not be a sign of displeasure, so interpret cautiously.
5. On this year’s topic, I consider my knowledge:
1 23 45
Very limited (avoid acronyms)Passable (I have basic background/history) Extensive (Have researched myself)
6. Advice for JV debaters:
I am an ethical policymaker for JV debaters. That means my model of the round accepts the conceit that we are pretending to be a part of the government capable of doing plan. I will listen to procedural issues (example: Topicality) which would effect my power to hear and make decisions on the plan, I will listen to policy impacts (Case arguments, Disads, CPs), and I will listen to moral issues that pertain to the policy world. This means Kritiks with fiat-world implications are acceptable. But I won't vote on “real world” implications on Kritiks. I will also prefer theory which best fits this model of debate.
7. Advice for Varsity debaters:
I am pretty close to tabula rasa for varsity, with two exceptions: 1. Arguments must be structurally valid, sound according to the evidence provided, and (if you expect me to vote on it) actually provide a reason to vote for you. Failure to provide all of these components will result in me ignoring the 'argument' (because its not an argument). 2. Like all people, I have some predispositions in what I find persuasive. These are theoretical construction preferences, not preferences for specific truth claims (where its much easier to ignore my personal views). I try to detail these below, and the degree to which these preferences are mutable varies.
That said, if you want me to vote as something other than an ethical policymaker, you'll have to explain what I'm voting on and why. (I'm willing to do it, but you have to build the framework for me). The usual instance of this, a kritik, should have this as their Thesis, Alternative, or both.
Role of the Ballot (RoB) / Framework arguments are powerful constructions. If unopposed, I will grant your RoB exactly as phrased, and vote accordingly. If there is debate over the RoB, I will choose the best interpretation offered in the round (based on the argumentation).
Similarly, affirmatives which elect to not be about the resolution need to have a theory of debate which is equitable for both sides and which justifies a ballot given their case. Negative framework arguments will be viewed highly sympathetically if the affirmative cannot provide such an interpretation.
7.5 Advice for all Debaters:
USING THIS SECTION: Aside from the comments on good debate practices, treat most of this as my default positions. Most of my theoretical standpoints can be modified or changed for that round by argumentation. This lets you know when you need to do that, or otherwise what you need to do to win certain types of arguments.
SIGNPOST! Good signposting can earn up to 1 bonus speaker point above what I would otherwise give you. If debaters have questions about good signposting, they should ask before the round.
Tag-Team CX is up to the people debating. Doesn't bother me.
Flashing Files – I expect the speaker to be prepared to give a roadmap and begin speaking immediately after handing off the flash drive. It can finish being passed around during the speech.
Pay attention to the flow and respond to what your opponent is saying.
Good strategic choices will be rewarded with speaker points.
I will reward good use of evidence, good analytical arguments, and good critical thinking. I have nothing against 'canned' arguments so long as they are deployed intelligently – 'canned' just means you wrote it ahead of time. I will penalize teams who treat their blocks as a script, and deploy them inappropriately.
Give an overview in the 2AR/2NR. Do impact analysis. Identify the key issues and tell me why you win them.
I believe 100% defense is possible, and that getting close to 100% is good enough. I favor probability over magnitude when probability gets small. (<1%) And while having some offense is often important, I do not believe in the offense/defense paradigm. I have voted negative when they have shown the affirmative doesn't do anything, even in the absence of surviving offense.
I believe the negative has presumption to start with. If the affirmative wins topicality, inherency, some harms, and some solvency for those harms, they steal presumption.
I believe the round is about the affirmative Plan. If, at the end of the round, Plan should be done, I should vote Aff. If debaters want me to behave otherwise, they will need to make that explicit.
Solvency requires a 'demonstration' that the advocated action actually solves the harms, not just assertion. For normal policy plans, this means statistical or empirical demonstration of effect or existence, or a similar quality of evidence. Discursive Affs must provide proof of concept – do, not just say we should.
I believe an argument from authority is a fallacy. When given the choice between taking an author's word for a warrant on one hand, and statistical, historical, or otherwise empirical data on the other, I will prefer the data.
I like good tech, but I also like in-depth argumentation. I will favor well-developed arguments over mediocre arguments, but I will also reward teams for catching dropped arguments and exploiting them. That said, there are times when the right argument is also a short argument, and doesn't need elaboration. (Example: if you're obviously topical, the right arguments on T don't need to be long).
Dropping an argument is tacit concession of the argument. You may still weigh other arguments against it, or apply the logic of other arguments to it or it to other arguments. What you can not do after dropping an argument is attempt to refute it.
Topicality is a real issue. I will vote on potential abuse (that is, I won't penalize a negative for being unreasonably prepared). But I also really dislike nonsense Topicality violations that exist just to eat time – if plan is obviously topical, I will not vote on T. That said, if you're going to go for T, you need to spend some time telling the story – not just why they aren't topical, but why that justifies a negative ballot.
I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to specification arguments when affirmative plans are vague to the point of unknowability.
I hate blippy theory debates. If you want to win a theoretical position, you need warrants for your claims. Analytical warrants are fine, but do the analysis.
I believe Fiat is an act of counterfactual imagination. That is, pretending the world is different than it is. Debate is about arguing for and against the desirability of counterfactual worlds. Fiat is legitimate to the extent that it would be possible to actually achieve that world (Utopianism is bad) and obeys the constraints of the resolution (The resolution constrains fiat to be about USFG actions, for example). I will listen to alternative interpretations of fiat, but this is the interpretation I find most inherently persuasive.
I love CPs which are specific to the affirmative case or its advantages, or at least have evidence specific to the affirmative case. I dislike CPs which are generic, and frequently think they are on questionable theoretical or evidential ground (or both). CPs can be highly strategic, and I appreciate when they are.
I believe the negative can fiat the CP, and I believe the affirmative can fiat the permutation, and assume advocacy for them as such. They are not compelled to do so. (Whether the CP is an advocacy or a test of competition, and whether the permutation is an advocacy or a test of competition, is something the relevant team may specify). I will note that un/conditionality is a property of advocacies. If the CP is just a test of competition, it no more requires these things than a DA does. (As a test of competition, a CP is basically a DA which says Plan trades off with the CP, and the CP is good).
The CP only needs to be net beneficial to an articulated permutation. Topical CPs are fine.
A K consists of a thesis, a link, an impact, and an alternative. I expect debaters running Ks to know what these things are, and to provide them. (Sometimes two or more of them will share the same card, but all those parts should be in the argument being made).
I love Ks which defend a specific ethical, epistemological, or ontological system, articulate an implementation, and force the affirmative to make explicit their own values, epistemology, or ontology and defend it.
K alts and any solvency they claim must be imaginable. That is, if I can't imagine what the alt means or how it fulfills any solvency claims, I can't vote for it. Frequently making it imaginable means having a positive claim. (Example: the Cap K alt: “reject capitalism” is unimaginable. I don't know what that world looks like, not least because no one ever defines exactly what they mean by Capitalism, and there are multiple competing visions for what 'not Capitalism' looks like. But a Cap K alt: “anarcho-syndicalism” is imaginable. I know what that is and can vote for it). In such unimaginable situations, in addition to listening to arguments that the alt isn't an actual alt and/or is abusive, I will also allow the other team (usually the Aff) the right to define what the alt is – and I encourage them to use this to their advantage. (So if the aff against the “reject capitalism” alt says the alt is Stalinism, I will accept that definition and let them defeat the K on the basis that Stalinism is worse than Capitalism – neg had a chance to specify and failed, and Stalinism is a form of not-Capitalism, so it would prove that not all not-Capitalism is 'good').
'Bad' is only meaningful in comparison to 'Good'. If you don't provide an alternative 'Good' to compare to, I will assume all claims of 'Bad'ness are relative to the Status Quo. (Typical affs implicitly provide a 'Good' comparison to the 'Bad' SQ with plan solvency.)
My epistemological stance towards evidence is Bayesian empiricism, and I will default to that. I will listen to argumentation that I should look at evidence through a different lens, and can only promise I will try if that argumentation is successful.
8. Please list any arguments you dislike and are especially inclined not to vote for.
I will not vote for affs that are only harms. Talking about bad things is not and has never been a reason for an affirmative ballot. Solving for bad things is.
I think consult C/Ps are conceptually illegitimate and misinterpreting evidence, but negatives should make the appropriate arguments in round.
Troll arguments will be listened to, but teams running them will be penalized on speaks. (eg, Cube Spec, word PICs, Consult Ashtar, etc...)
I will not vote for any argument which the team advocating cannot explain to their opponents or convince me they understand, even if I understand it. In fact, I will be sympathetic to arguments that running a position they are unable to articulate is grounds for a punitive ballot against them.
I will not vote for Kritiks which do not create a 'badness deficit' relative to the plan. That is, unless the K has uniqueness, it must propose positive action(s) or prescription(s) which results in a world with less 'bad things' than the status quo AND the aff plan. (The K may also change how I measure 'bad things', and its effects will be evaluated appropriately). Otherwise, it is not a reason to reject the plan.
Ad hominem is a fallacy when deployed against argument. Any argument which is equivalent to ad hominem, against either debaters or authors providing argument, will be ignored, and may be grounds for a punitive ballot. (Authors who provide testimony may be indicted by ad hominem attacks legitimately).
Any debater caught 'clipping' cards or otherwise unfairly deploying evidence will be severely penalized on speaker points, and may have other consequences applied if the abuse is egregious enough. 'Clipping' is usually defined as failure to read all the underlined text, in order, unless you mark the card otherwise. That's a good rule of thumb, but my standard is a little more rigorous and specific. Debaters must read sufficient evidence to warrant the claim made by the tag – marking an early stopping point is still abusive if you haven't warranted the tag. If for any reason the debater didn't read all the underlined evidence, they must tell the other team exactly what they did read as soon as their speech is over. This means I'm okay with an on-the-fly retagging of a card and selective reading of text off it – they just must make it clear to the other team exactly what was read into evidence, and what they read must provide warrants for the tag they used. (For those with laptops, you can actually re-underline a card during prep time. This is the equivalent evidence standard for those with physical files).