To a first-time community judge, debate seems like a ten-by-ten Rubix sphere and you have thirteen minutes (in LD anyway) to break it down for them.
You need to make it clear why they should vote for you, and make them feel confident and informed about their decision. That's what voting issues, or "Voters/VIs" (outside-round or alumni judge round slang) are for. They are three main points you make in your final speech that sum up the round into the biggest and most weighted arguments (or what you want the judges to think the biggest and most weighted arguments are) and are quite literally The Three Biggest Reasons You Should Vote For Me.
The magic number is three. Always use three. If you can't think of a third one, use one of the few I have below. Number five is best for a filler voter. It's also incredibly persuasive. If you're wondering why three, it's because people are scientifically proven to be more attracted to things in threes and remember things better in threes, it's enough without being too much debate-wise, and gives you exactly one minute per voter in the 2AR in LD - essentially doing the time management for you. However, there's no technical rule and no one will condemn you (except me - just kidding) for using two or four.
Voting Issues are something I'm really proud about. I can pretty much bomb everything else, but my voting issues are normally on fleek. I've won ballots based on voting issues from Alumni, parents, and community judges. I'll admit, I have areas I need to work on as much as anybody else (I have occasionally horrible time management - causing dropped arguments, a tendency to be redundant, and some really weird and long awkward filler statements. The really weird awkward fillers is a post coming soon) and I've only reached voting issue semi-awesomeness over this past year. However, since its one of my most consistent areas of praise ballot-wise, I've decided to look over my old ballots are share some of my most successful voters with you, along with my stand-by favorites that work for any round. (#ShamelessBragging moment, the first time I ever went 5-1 all of my ballots praised my voting issues, even the round I lost)
Remember, the purpose of voting issues it to make the judge feel smart by being easy to understand, speedy because rebuttals are short, and as impactful as possible.
The Tags for each voting issue are the actual tags you should use in a round. These don't HAVE to be VIs, you can use them as argument tags earlier, too.
1. Real-World Application
In a world as philosophy and theory-based as LD, things get muddled fast. I use this voting issue frequently. Just point out to your judge that in the real world your opponent's case would help much. This works if your opponents case in definitionally based, philosophy based, a Kritik, a balance, or just generally not very grounded. If they do the whole this-is-not-TP-we-are-debating-what-should-be thing, simply say that the reason why debate is to learn how to make decisions in the real world and LD is deciding the values we base those decision on. (Sub-point one: Why We Debate) Yes, ideally that should be happening. However, we don't live in a perfect world (sub-point tag two: No Utopia) and in order to get to that ideal this is what we should value. It appeals to the judge's sense of common sense. In fancy terms, this is Pragmatism Is Superior to Idealism and you can use that tag instead if you have a fancy Philosophy major or six-years-of-LD Alumni judge who you want to knock the socks off.
2. Why We Debate
This is something my Parli coach taught me, and sometimes it needs its own voting issue. Before you even start debate you should know why we debate. We debate for educational purposes, we debate to have fun, we debate to learn how to make decisions, we debate to inform. If your opponent is violating or hindering that, call them out.
3. Limitation (or Necessity or Protection) Does Not Equal Superiority
There's a lot of argumentation that goes into this. Basically, a lot of cases under a lot of resolutions in a lot of leagues run on the assumption that because Value A limits or is necessary for or protects Value B that Value A is more valuable. Let me ask you something, when you cut a diamond and shine it up, are the tools you use more valuable than the diamond? No. Air is necessary for humans to live. So is Air more valuable than Human Life? No. If you you keep your diamond in a safe, is the safe that protects your safe more valuable than the diamond itself? Nope. I've learned this line of argumentation from my friend Jamie, and its clever because, again, the judge connects to the common sense of it all.
4. People Can Be Terrible
Confession, I've only used this once. However, it is my most memorable voter tag. I remember writing it and prep time thinking it sounded like a perfectly normal tag. When I used it at the podium? I realized how not-normal it sounded and I got an unintentionally chuckle from the audience. It worked, though. My opponent was arguing that all humans have a conscience and ultimately people will choose to do the right thing. Analysis: people, entire nations, do absolutely terrible things and have done so since the beginning of time which fit their conscience because its based on religion or worldview or just human tendency to be selfish. Applications: Ancient Human Sacrifice, Nazis, modern day North Korea. Impact: My value of human rights was more important than community moral standards. Not only was it a good, organized argument ...more bragging, yes I'm a jerk...based on 4-Point refutation (IRAI - Identify, Refute, Analyze, Impact) but it highlights something else.
Interesting, short, unique voters can catch the judge's attention and stick with them as they're filling out their ballot. Just make sure they're backed up with a good, serious argument.
5. All Burdens Fulfilled (and Value Achieved)
You can add the part in parentheses if you aren't using number six. This is telling the judge: Hey, I know you're wondering who to vote for. My job, in order to earn your ballot, is to achieve this thing. I've done this, as is evident by this and that. My opponent, on the other hand, hasn't upheld their end because of this and that. Therefore, I respectfully request your ballot.
6. Both Values Achieved
You can only do this if you actually have achieved both values. Example: "Judge, my case shows how if we stand against the resolution than not only can we best achieve Human Life, but I've also proven in my last speech (or earlier in your NR, for LD) how Security is actually better achieved by standing against the resolution. Voting for the resolution actually harms Security because tag x, tag y, tag z and voting Negative today achieves it through tag a, tag b, tag c." This impresses the judge, because if the vote for you, they get their cake and can eat it, too. There isn't any choice to make but vote for you, because you've literally achieved everything.
7a. Fun With Grammar
My friend Grady Lynn came up with this in LD finals and got a good laugh. He is the Sass-Master, and this tag caught everyone's attention. Which was a good thing, because the whole round ended up hinging on a technical definition-y thing and the audience wasn't having as much fun. The actual argument was concerning grammar specifics of the resolution, as you've probably guessed. The tag helped make a slightly dull argument more enticing. Anytime I have to attack my opponent's grammatical take on the res, because some people get squirrel-y, I use this tag. I don't think Grady knows, but I don't think he'd mind. I actually named-dropped him in a Parli round once.
"My partner and I have a friend named Grady Lynn. We're going to do what he calls 'Fun With Grammar'. So that's what you can tag this argument."
The judge didn't know who he was, he was first-time community and Grady wasn't competing, but he still chuckled and we got a few knocks from the audience (who all knew Grady).
7b. The Dreaded Definition Debate
I came up with this one. It's basically "Fun With Grammar", but concerning definition debates instead of grammatical ones.
I came up with this one round where I was debating my Parli partner in LD. We seem to hit each other at least every other tournament.
"Judge, you can tag this last Voting Issue as The Dreaded Definition Debate. Yes, I know. I hate to be that person. I really do..."
Bella (my partner/opponent) started laughing back at the table because I sounded genuinely apologetic about this. Which I was. I hate definition debates.
"...see, most debaters dislike debating about definitions. However, right now its incredibly necessary to look at what the resolution really means because (insert Real-World Application arguments here). So ('so' is my filler word) you can see, if we accept my opponents definition, we really aren't looking at the whole resolution and it limits our ability to decide what would happen certain situations."
8. Dropped Arguments
My favorite Alumni judging philosophy I've received was this,
"I don't like spreading, I don't like speed-reading, and dropped arguments is the easiest way to lose a round. Go."
It was to the point and told us exactly what we needed to do.
If you drop arguments its a round-altering thing. If your opponent drops a few major arguments, or even one or two entire contentions, its a big deal. Parent judges may or may notice it if you don't point it out, and Alumni judges will notice but only vote on it depending on their personal beliefs on whether or not you have to bring it up to have impact, but community judges most likely won't even notice. POINT IT OUT.
It's such a big deal, that if you make it a VI, you've automatically brought it to your judge's attention. Now they know its there, its obvious, and your opponent can't wiggle out.
In LD, as the Neg you have only one opportunity to do this. As the Aff wait to nail 'em in the 2AR so they can't come back. Still carry the arguments that were dropped through the 1AR, and mention there was no response, but if you hammer it in too hard in the 1AR your opponent will probably just claim in the NR that their arguments cross-apply to those contentions, too, making your claim null and void while not violating the "no new arguments in rebuttals" rule.
In Parli it's harder because most of the debate is constructives and dropped arguments can be amended in the immediately following speech, so wait until the last two speeches to make it a point. Also, dropped arguments aren't as crucial in Parli because of the adaptability and veering tendencies of Parli rounds, and since all of the speeches except the last two are a whole seven minutes, nothing ever gets dropped.
9. (Value Here) Is Paramount
This is another good filler voter, and reminds the judge you won the most crucial piece of value debate - the value.
10. (The Tag of your most important argument)
Is the whole debate hinging on that one argument? That should immediately be a VI.
Is that argument basically the same as one of your contentions? Give it the same tag. Make sure to point it out, too, that the contention still stands and has remained important through the whole round. Re-emphasize its important, add an extra application if you have thirty seconds. This also draws the judge's eye back to your constructive on the flow, reminding you them of all the argumentation and applications under that contention that you won't have time to mention here. You've condensed a two-minute argument to a fourty five second one.
One last note: if you have an extra three seconds in prep re-order your voters in logical order. So scribble them down as you think them up and add your sub-points, but maybe things will flow better if I say Human Rights are Paramount before Valuing Stability Harms Human Rights. After all, don't you want the judge to know why somethings important before you explain why it shouldn't be harmed? Just erase the numbers next to them and re-order. The more chronologically logical your voters are, the stronger they become.
Voting Issues are something I'm really proud about. I can pretty much bomb everything else, but my voting issues are normally on fleek. I've won ballots based on voting issues from Alumni, parents, and community judges. I'll admit, I have areas I need to work on as much as anybody else (I have occasionally horrible time management - causing dropped arguments, a tendency to be redundant, and some really weird and long awkward filler statements. The really weird awkward fillers is a post coming soon) and I've only reached voting issue semi-awesomeness over this past year. However, since its one of my most consistent areas of praise ballot-wise, I've decided to look over my old ballots are share some of my most successful voters with you, along with my stand-by favorites that work for any round. (#ShamelessBragging moment, the first time I ever went 5-1 all of my ballots praised my voting issues, even the round I lost)
Remember, the purpose of voting issues it to make the judge feel smart by being easy to understand, speedy because rebuttals are short, and as impactful as possible.
The Tags for each voting issue are the actual tags you should use in a round. These don't HAVE to be VIs, you can use them as argument tags earlier, too.
1. Real-World Application
In a world as philosophy and theory-based as LD, things get muddled fast. I use this voting issue frequently. Just point out to your judge that in the real world your opponent's case would help much. This works if your opponents case in definitionally based, philosophy based, a Kritik, a balance, or just generally not very grounded. If they do the whole this-is-not-TP-we-are-debating-what-should-be thing, simply say that the reason why debate is to learn how to make decisions in the real world and LD is deciding the values we base those decision on. (Sub-point one: Why We Debate) Yes, ideally that should be happening. However, we don't live in a perfect world (sub-point tag two: No Utopia) and in order to get to that ideal this is what we should value. It appeals to the judge's sense of common sense. In fancy terms, this is Pragmatism Is Superior to Idealism and you can use that tag instead if you have a fancy Philosophy major or six-years-of-LD Alumni judge who you want to knock the socks off.
2. Why We Debate
This is something my Parli coach taught me, and sometimes it needs its own voting issue. Before you even start debate you should know why we debate. We debate for educational purposes, we debate to have fun, we debate to learn how to make decisions, we debate to inform. If your opponent is violating or hindering that, call them out.
3. Limitation (or Necessity or Protection) Does Not Equal Superiority
There's a lot of argumentation that goes into this. Basically, a lot of cases under a lot of resolutions in a lot of leagues run on the assumption that because Value A limits or is necessary for or protects Value B that Value A is more valuable. Let me ask you something, when you cut a diamond and shine it up, are the tools you use more valuable than the diamond? No. Air is necessary for humans to live. So is Air more valuable than Human Life? No. If you you keep your diamond in a safe, is the safe that protects your safe more valuable than the diamond itself? Nope. I've learned this line of argumentation from my friend Jamie, and its clever because, again, the judge connects to the common sense of it all.
4. People Can Be Terrible
Confession, I've only used this once. However, it is my most memorable voter tag. I remember writing it and prep time thinking it sounded like a perfectly normal tag. When I used it at the podium? I realized how not-normal it sounded and I got an unintentionally chuckle from the audience. It worked, though. My opponent was arguing that all humans have a conscience and ultimately people will choose to do the right thing. Analysis: people, entire nations, do absolutely terrible things and have done so since the beginning of time which fit their conscience because its based on religion or worldview or just human tendency to be selfish. Applications: Ancient Human Sacrifice, Nazis, modern day North Korea. Impact: My value of human rights was more important than community moral standards. Not only was it a good, organized argument ...more bragging, yes I'm a jerk...based on 4-Point refutation (IRAI - Identify, Refute, Analyze, Impact) but it highlights something else.
Interesting, short, unique voters can catch the judge's attention and stick with them as they're filling out their ballot. Just make sure they're backed up with a good, serious argument.
5. All Burdens Fulfilled (and Value Achieved)
You can add the part in parentheses if you aren't using number six. This is telling the judge: Hey, I know you're wondering who to vote for. My job, in order to earn your ballot, is to achieve this thing. I've done this, as is evident by this and that. My opponent, on the other hand, hasn't upheld their end because of this and that. Therefore, I respectfully request your ballot.
6. Both Values Achieved
You can only do this if you actually have achieved both values. Example: "Judge, my case shows how if we stand against the resolution than not only can we best achieve Human Life, but I've also proven in my last speech (or earlier in your NR, for LD) how Security is actually better achieved by standing against the resolution. Voting for the resolution actually harms Security because tag x, tag y, tag z and voting Negative today achieves it through tag a, tag b, tag c." This impresses the judge, because if the vote for you, they get their cake and can eat it, too. There isn't any choice to make but vote for you, because you've literally achieved everything.
7a. Fun With Grammar
My friend Grady Lynn came up with this in LD finals and got a good laugh. He is the Sass-Master, and this tag caught everyone's attention. Which was a good thing, because the whole round ended up hinging on a technical definition-y thing and the audience wasn't having as much fun. The actual argument was concerning grammar specifics of the resolution, as you've probably guessed. The tag helped make a slightly dull argument more enticing. Anytime I have to attack my opponent's grammatical take on the res, because some people get squirrel-y, I use this tag. I don't think Grady knows, but I don't think he'd mind. I actually named-dropped him in a Parli round once.
"My partner and I have a friend named Grady Lynn. We're going to do what he calls 'Fun With Grammar'. So that's what you can tag this argument."
The judge didn't know who he was, he was first-time community and Grady wasn't competing, but he still chuckled and we got a few knocks from the audience (who all knew Grady).
7b. The Dreaded Definition Debate
I came up with this one. It's basically "Fun With Grammar", but concerning definition debates instead of grammatical ones.
I came up with this one round where I was debating my Parli partner in LD. We seem to hit each other at least every other tournament.
"Judge, you can tag this last Voting Issue as The Dreaded Definition Debate. Yes, I know. I hate to be that person. I really do..."
Bella (my partner/opponent) started laughing back at the table because I sounded genuinely apologetic about this. Which I was. I hate definition debates.
"...see, most debaters dislike debating about definitions. However, right now its incredibly necessary to look at what the resolution really means because (insert Real-World Application arguments here). So ('so' is my filler word) you can see, if we accept my opponents definition, we really aren't looking at the whole resolution and it limits our ability to decide what would happen certain situations."
8. Dropped Arguments
My favorite Alumni judging philosophy I've received was this,
"I don't like spreading, I don't like speed-reading, and dropped arguments is the easiest way to lose a round. Go."
It was to the point and told us exactly what we needed to do.
If you drop arguments its a round-altering thing. If your opponent drops a few major arguments, or even one or two entire contentions, its a big deal. Parent judges may or may notice it if you don't point it out, and Alumni judges will notice but only vote on it depending on their personal beliefs on whether or not you have to bring it up to have impact, but community judges most likely won't even notice. POINT IT OUT.
It's such a big deal, that if you make it a VI, you've automatically brought it to your judge's attention. Now they know its there, its obvious, and your opponent can't wiggle out.
In LD, as the Neg you have only one opportunity to do this. As the Aff wait to nail 'em in the 2AR so they can't come back. Still carry the arguments that were dropped through the 1AR, and mention there was no response, but if you hammer it in too hard in the 1AR your opponent will probably just claim in the NR that their arguments cross-apply to those contentions, too, making your claim null and void while not violating the "no new arguments in rebuttals" rule.
In Parli it's harder because most of the debate is constructives and dropped arguments can be amended in the immediately following speech, so wait until the last two speeches to make it a point. Also, dropped arguments aren't as crucial in Parli because of the adaptability and veering tendencies of Parli rounds, and since all of the speeches except the last two are a whole seven minutes, nothing ever gets dropped.
9. (Value Here) Is Paramount
This is another good filler voter, and reminds the judge you won the most crucial piece of value debate - the value.
10. (The Tag of your most important argument)
Is the whole debate hinging on that one argument? That should immediately be a VI.
Is that argument basically the same as one of your contentions? Give it the same tag. Make sure to point it out, too, that the contention still stands and has remained important through the whole round. Re-emphasize its important, add an extra application if you have thirty seconds. This also draws the judge's eye back to your constructive on the flow, reminding you them of all the argumentation and applications under that contention that you won't have time to mention here. You've condensed a two-minute argument to a fourty five second one.
One last note: if you have an extra three seconds in prep re-order your voters in logical order. So scribble them down as you think them up and add your sub-points, but maybe things will flow better if I say Human Rights are Paramount before Valuing Stability Harms Human Rights. After all, don't you want the judge to know why somethings important before you explain why it shouldn't be harmed? Just erase the numbers next to them and re-order. The more chronologically logical your voters are, the stronger they become.
