Will Katz ParadigmLast changed 9/28 12:08P CDT
Yes email chain-- College: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
High School: firstname.lastname@example.org
4 years debating and 6 years coaching at Washburn Rural High School (1 of those also with Carrollton), 4 years debating and 2 year coaching at KU
SLOW DOWN. Even the clearest debaters have moments of unclarity in online debate, slow down a little bit so that it's easier to recover from small lags in tech.
I have a 2-monitor setup, so if I look like I'm staring above my computer, I promise I'm paying attention
Argument non-specific things
I vote neg a lot. I think a lot of that is circumstantial. However, I reward going deep on an argument and resolving/impacting every argument (rather than just extending/making arguments). The neg almost always does this, the aff (especially in the 1ar) not so much. Aff teams that win in front of me almost always forgo a strategy of extending a large quantity of arguments in favor of going very deep on a handful of arguments, almost always with additional evidence and comparisons.
Debate off your flow, don't just read scripts
I read a lot of evidence. I value evidence quality a lot, and that includes highlighting quality.
Argumentative narrative is very important to me. Packaging arguments effectively goes a long way with me.
I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate.
I am not the best judge for run and gun strategies. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a complete argument, and am very receptive to teams that flippantly disregard incomplete arguments.
Turns case has been relevant in a lot of rfd's I've given
Not the best judge for process cp's
Theory is a winnable 2ar. I think I am just as persuadable that the neg should get 0 conditional advocacies as I am that they should get infinite. To me, it is entirely up to the debaters, which these days makes me a good judge for a team going for theory.
"Conditional" means judge kick but I can definitely be convinced to stick the neg with the cp they went for without wholesale rejecting conditionality
Framework vs K affs
I am very good for the neg in these debates. I vote neg a lot because usually it is more clear to me how the negative team's model of debate produces a better season of debates. Aff's would be well served investing a lot of time into describing their model of debate as opposed to their own affirmative. I am unlikely to determine that debate is wholesale bad and/or that there is no value to debating. If you rely on those arguments to win framework debates, I am not your ideal judge.
Neg Kritik vs Policy aff
Framework is important. I very rarely vote neg if the neg doesn't win framework. It isn't impossible to win without winning framework/consequentialism, but as the neg it makes your job much harder
Negs that do impact calculus, change the framework of the debate, and actually challenge core assumptions of the aff are usually in a good spot
Please do impact comparison, don't just list your impacts in the overview.
Ramblings on vague plan texts, topicality, and cp competition (mostly relevant for the hs topic)
I am becoming more and more convinced that the plan is more than the plan text. Plan's have texts and functions. If the function of the plan is clearly described in a particular manner (for example, all of the solvency evidence is about a particular actor or mechanism), I can pretty easily be convinced that can't be separated from what I view the plan to be. Some will call this positional competition, I view it as just functional competition (or rather, adding a functional dynamic to what the plan does).
What does this mean? Given roughly equal debating on this question, I am:
-Neg leaning on T vs an aff we meet argument that amounts to "We've explained our aff in a way that violates for basically the whole debate, but we wrote the plan text in a way that uses all of the words in the resolution so we do not violate." While I am also open to different remedies to that problem (define the plan via normal means evidence, etc) I don't think that forcloses going for T
-Neg leaning on CP competition arguments that follow a similar path to the T arguments above.
Subsequently, since this probably makes life harder for the aff and I am already a neg hack anyway, I will say that I am probably one of the few judges that thinks of competition and theoretical legitimacy as basically entirely separate. If agent cp's are bad, just win agent cp's are bad, but don't be a coward and read a nonsense plan.