Last changed on
Fri September 29, 2023 at 1:50 PM MDT
Read the bold stuff if you're in a hurry.
Logistics: 1) Add me to the chain: knj522@gmail.com, and 2)both teams can insert re-highlighting of the other teams' evidence if they give a brief explanation of what they think the evidence actually says.
2023-2024 Topic Update: I'd love to see some wonky economics debates, whether it be a novel cap k or whacky interest rates DA. I'll bump speaks and I'll be able to give you targeted feedback, including ideas for argument innovation and specific authors. This was my major and how I enjoy spending free time.
SLC West '19
Trinity '23
Affiliations: Glenbrook North High School, Casady High School
Background and Thoughts on Debate:
I endeavor to be maximally impartial in making decisions. If judges interjected their beliefs into my debates, I got quite annoyed. Consequently, I won't consciously interject my beliefs into debates, with two exceptions.
First, be nice: interpersonal hostility sucks, especially in debate. I won't hesitate to nuke your speaks if you're rude. Debaters should show each other mutual respect for the work they put into the activity. Conversely, making small chat before the round and during dead time in the debate will boost your speaks.
Second, I (and everyone) will inject their unconscious biases into debates. There's three you should be aware of:
First, I'm an economics and political science data nerd whose primary debate strategies were tiny aff's, the cap k, generic counterplans, politics, whatever the topic DA was, and impact turns. Consequently,
my knowledge of much critical literature - especially critical literature authored by old, white, French guys - is lacking. If I can't understand your argument, I can't vote on it. If I were a critical team, I would pref me above "no plan, no ballot" judges but below most clash judges.
Second, my primary skill in debate was evidence production, not speaking. Good cards will have an undue influence on how I see the debate. Nonetheless, I acknowledge this is a bias: I strive to focus on what debaters, not the cards, say.
Third, I take a more big picture/embedded clash view of debate than many critics. Debate is about telling compelling stories. Far more important than the fact that 2NC #3b was dropped is how 2NC #3b fits into the narrative you're weaving. This has two consequences for you. First, isolating, weighing, and explaining how your external offense turns your opponents' external offense is critical. Second, I'm much more willing to "zero" DAs or advantages than most judges. If an advantage or DA is bunk for a very specific reason, tell me. Even good analytics can zero a DA or advantage.
Besides that, I see debate as a game that I evaluate based on the flow. From planless affs to process CPs - I'll strive to ensure the win/loss evaluation is based on who debated the issue better.
However, my evaluation of speaker points will be quite subjective. In addition to rating debaters' speaking quality, I use points to reward strategies and practices which I believe make debate fun and educational. These strategies and practices include:
1. Novelty in general, but especially in clash/framework debates
2. Methodological indicts of your opponents evidence (minimal sample size, correlation vs causation, etc) and methodological prodicts of your evidence (explaining the specific methodology and why it's reliable, reading a meta analysis of studies)
3. Really good cards - on anything. Be loud about it if you believe your evidence meets this threshold.
4. Unique, specific variants of the cap k (not just reading the cap k - finding a specific, weird Marxist tradition/thesis that rebuts the aff)
5. Impact turns - I love dedev and war good debates.
6. Straight turning an advantage or DA
7. Tiny, clever aff's with tricks
8. Huge, whole-rez style aff's
