I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

3 years of Congress in high school, 4th year collegiate policy debate.

Congress

Present your arguments clearly, articulately, and with a source if possible. DO NOT REHASH PAST SPEECHES. I WILL MARK YOU DOWN FOR IT. Touching on a past speech's point to strengthen your own is fine, but don't just repeat it.

REBUTTAL OF PAST SPEECHES IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED. Rebuttal should happen as early as the first negative speech. The Session is not a debate without rebuttal. Remember that I have been a policy debater for the last 4 years.

I grade on both presentation and argumentation in Congress. Good use of hand motions and body language will be rewarded.

I love impact calculus. Why is what you're talking about most important in the round? Weigh your impacts against those of the opposing side.

Policy

I am a K debater overall, mostly ran cap, set col, coloniality, black nihilism, and queer theory a la Halberstam. I'm a sucker for good impact analysis. If you have solvency, and your impacts outweigh, you win.

Case Debate

Case debate is wonderful. Use case cards that are consistent with your off-case positions (condo is fine, but be sure they're not contradictory). 2As, explain your aff. If the neg has good case cards they are applying, you need to tell me why they don't apply to your aff or why your aff solves them by EXPLAINING YOUR AFF. Use the 1AC and 1NC extensively through the debate, that's why they're there.

Topicality

I am neutral on topicality. I'll vote for it if you go for it and win your arguments. We meet and counter-interp are not mutually exclusive. Counter-definitions are a powerful tool for the aff.

Theory

You better spend 80% of your last speech on theory if you want me to vote for it. I need substantive reasons why they should lose the round and why any other team doing the same thing should lose the round. If you can't provide those, don't go for theory. I hate theory as a time suck. I think it's indicative of bad debating. Only go for theory if you plan on using it strategically besides as a time suck, please.

Framework

The last time I ran a topical aff was my novice year of policy. Generally, I will vote against framework if both sides are evenly matched on the flow because that's my bias. I will vote for framework if you are winning your arguments. I am generally more persuaded by arguments for education than for fairness, but I think aff answers to education are much stronger than aff answers to fairness (perm you get policy education in every other round definitely solves the education flow). I think structural unfairness is real, but you still have to prove it to me. Neg, tell me why debate will always be structurally unfair regardless of the ability to run atopical affs.

CPs and DAs

Pretty neutral on these. Explain your DA link chain clearly, and explain how the CP solves both the DA and the case. I need you to not use tons of acronyms or general policy-based lingo; I am a K debater, so while my knowledge of US government is still very good, it's probably not wide or deep enough to know what you're talking about from the acronyms in your CP/DA.

Ks

I love the K. I think Baudrillard is much stronger on the aff than the neg, but I think most other Ks are equally strong on either side. I don't like the Death K. I still want real-world impacts to your K. Explain how the alt solves the K. Explain how the alt solves the aff, if you can. If the alt doesn't solve the aff, but solves the K, be sure to explain why the K outweighs the aff. Aff teams, press the neg on their alt. Most neg teams have a really hard time explaining how their alt solves the aff, and sometimes even how it solves the K.

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

In General:

Writing down a defined paradigm has always seemed like a foreign concept for me. At my best, I hope to be tabula rasa.

I've debated both on the High School and College level albeit before most of you were born.

For me, it comes down to how well you can articulate and defend your position.

I absolutely love debate both as events at tournaments, in person between friends or rivals, and on the internet with randoms.

Feel free to use your entire playbook to win the round.

As it relates to Speaker Points:

Feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like, but I would recommend ensuring that your speed isn't at the expense of your clarity.

While not funny myself, I am fine with humor and sarcasm. I don't find either necessary to win a round, but if that's part of your natural charm feel free to be yourself.

Where I will draw the line is on rudeness. Frankly, it has no place in intellectual activities. Do not insult your opponent, or attempt to gain an advantage by "dragging your feet".

Evaluating/Comparing Args and Impact Calculus will be rewarded. If the debate were just about the amount of literature one person or a team could read or reference then it would be decided prior to the round. Instead, the top speakers at a tournament have the ability to analyze the strength and weakness of both their own and their opponents' arguments.

PS:

Its been over a decade since I've been actively involved in the community. As items of relevancy come up at tournaments, I will update this more thoroughly.