8 years coaching, 4 years college debate

By default, I evaluate the two (or four) competing options in a debate in a cost-benefit manor. Being an economist by training, I look to optimize social utility when voting. For the debater, this means maximize the net benefits in policy choice. This is not exclusive of other ways of evaluating the debate, but I would be misleading you if now matter what you say, I still end up looking at the net benefits of any policy choice at the end of the debate (though the lens of choice may be normative, pragmatic, etc.). You have substantial input into how the cost-benefit analysis is conducted (and it is demanded of you when attempting to persuade me to vote for your policy option).

I fundamentally view your role in the round as advocates and communicators. With that assumption, you must persuade me on any given argument, issue, or policy option. Hence, arguments that I cannot understand (due to clarity, over complexity, etc.) cannot possibly meet the threshold requirement of persuasion (though that is somewhat of a high threshold – I give non-verbals all the time if I am not following you). Additionally, it is worth noting that I (and I would argue all judges) have a predisposition on the credibility (or persuasiveness) of given arguments. I know you cannot possibly know what arguments have inherent appeal to me (because even I don’t know at times), but you can be assured that claims without warrants do not meet this threshold of persuasiveness (i.e. a moral imperative without a warrant, a call to vote for a body count without a warrant, etc.).

A final caveat for both debate teams regards evidence. Too often debate has degenerated into the press wire that is very power worded verses a not so power worded professional. Well you know what...the less power worded card is probably more credible, because the professional knows better than to make the ridiculous generalizations that the journalist for the AFP made. To put it simply, CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES MATTERS TO ME! Not only does who said it matter, but I also consider issues like peer review, methodological issues, analysis, etc. all to be very important (especially in the age of electronic publication by randomly unqualified or unreviewed authors). As a sidebar, I would add that just because you have a card that says a ludicrous thing, you must defend the warrants for that claim in the evidence. So in an instance where your opponents have good analytical (unevidenced) answers that contradict or refute the warrants in your evidence, you are required by me to defend those warrants (not just say, "we have a card."). Finally, you debate not your evidence. Hence, your evidence is a mere extension of your arguments. If you say "5 reasons" verses your opponent who outlines those reasons and draws out key distinctions between the cards, even if your card is from GOD, you will most likely loose the argument.

To put it simply, you cannot go wrong with a straight-up strategy (meaning unique case turns, CP plus a net benefit, etc.). I come from a tradition of lots of offensive arguments to beat-back, turn the case, or outweigh the case. I also am not predisposed against PICs, Exclusion CPs, critiques, or whatever. I hold most counterplans and critiques to a high bar in terms of proving competition with the plan and/or assumptions of the case.

Think of argument choice (for me) as falling along a continuum of persuasive appeal:

Traditional Debate ß ------------------ ® Non-Traditional Debate

Arguments Arguments

------------------------- -------------------------------

Easier to Persuade Less Easy to Persuade

Where do you fall? Well, along the continuum. The less mainstream your argument strategy, the higher threshold for persuasion. I will vote on almost ANYTHING. It is just a matter of persuading me to vote for it.

While my judging philosophy may state the obvious, often the obvious is overlooked. I am not perfect, nor am I claiming to be. I am not a computer that takes in data and spits out a predicted result. I do my best, but just like you make mistakes in rounds, so to do your judges. The only problem is that a "mistake" is in the eye of the beholder. Your advocacy is the tool to manipulate my imperfections and make sure I do not make a mistake to your detriment.

Ask me if you need more information. As I get older I find myself increasingly like my mentor, George Ziegelmueller. So ask yourself, would George Ziegelmueller vote for that? If the answer is yes, then it probably is yes for me. If the answer is no, then go a little to the left of George’s philosophy and you will find me there (remember, I debated for George and his belief system re: arguments is ingrained into me).

Have a good time.