David B. Hingstman University of Iowa 7 tournaments, 22 years coaching, 25 rounds
HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES: At the NDT, most debates end with unresolved disputes about the
following kinds of issues: (1) comparative strength of explanation and proof of link to
impacts vs. strength of link turns; (2) degree to which uniqueness or debatability
responses take out or overwhelm links; (3) support for link to specific policies from the
evidence read; and (4) size of impacts and overall risk balance.
I am UNLIKELY to do the following things that other judges sometimes do to decide close
rounds, with the exception of particularly egregious situations: (A) completely accept or
ignore one side's story on links, link turns, uniqueness, and risk assessment; (B)
discount one side's story on these issues on the grounds that I didn't understand it
sufficiently; (C) assume that each side wins "some" link or "some"
link turn to their impacts in spite of very strong uniqueness or argument thesis
challenges and then weigh the size of the impacts in a rough fashion; or (D) apply strict
standards of "newness" to discount arguments in rebuttal speeches other than
2AR.
I am LIKELY to resolve these conflicts by using two steps: (I) devising an overarching
story on major issues or on subsidiary parts of major issues that gives some credence to
both sides' final positions on that issue but shows why one side's position ultimately
becomes more relevant to drawing a particular conclusion on that issue; (II) if necessary,
checking the relationship between particular claims and the evidential and argumentative
support for those claims when that relationship is contested. You can increase your chance
of winning my ballot if you make a special effort to: (a) understand the other side's
arguments [ALL OF THEM]; (b) use labels that explain your arguments or give one sentence
of explanation between label and card; (c) figure out what both sides agree on for any
issue or argument you want to extend and use that agreement to coopt the other side's
position; (d) assess issues in the last rebuttal under the worst-case assumption that I
will give the other side's position on each issue some consideration and be willing to
concede those arguments that are not critical to a favorable assessment for you; and (e) explain
why an argument made in 1NR, 1AR, or 2NR is illegitimately new and then answer
the argument anyway. If you do not provide me with explanations on subissues that
subsume and reconcile the opposing arguments, I will look for that explanation by thinking
about the arguments or by looking at the evidence.
TOPICALITY: I treat it like other issues in the debate, by synthesizing the competing
stories. I am usually asked to put the most weight on the resolution of debatability
issues. I am more likely to vote on topicality than the average national circuit judge
because I don't dismiss well-developed topicality attacks on the assumption that cases run
all year are topical.
COUNTERPLANS AND KRITIKS: Debaters should justify conditional arguments and kritiks, if
challenged theoretically, on theoretical grounds, but I do not reject them out of hand (I
voted for the orientalism critique a few time last year). In the absence of alternative
advocacy, my default paradigm for counterplan evaluation is traditional policy-making,
which means to me that topical counterplans lie beyond negative ground (and thus the
negative has no policy to advocate unless they defend a reversion to the present system if
that situation arises) and that counterplans should be net beneficial or mutually
exclusive. I do not reject out of hand such things as topical, plan-inclusive, and
alternative agent counterplans, but the negative would be wise to include theoretical
justification upon introduction since these arguments are sometimes challenged
theoretically. I do not reject plan amendment permutations out of hand, but, again, prior
justifications may be helpful later on.
DECISION-MAKING PARADIGM: Traditional policy-making, unless you provide and ultimately
better defend theoretical justification for some other paradigm in the debate. I do not
reject intrinsicness arguments out of hand, but hypothesis testing paradigm should be
justified when challenged.
NEW ARGUMENTS IN 2AR (AND DISCOS): I allow rebuttalists to grant certain arguments to take
out others, but if occurs without warning in 2AR, I am unlikely to accept it unless there
is NO reasonably conceivable response the negative could have made to undercut the shift.
The same standard applies to new arguments in 2AR.
STYLE AND CROSS-EX: I penalize stylistic excesses and rudeness in speaker points, not in
the decision. Evidence misuse penalties vary according to the seriousness of the
distortion. The significance of cross-x answers should be developed in the speeches.