Will Katz ParadigmLast changed 7/31 5:30P 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
Compile a doc of all relevant cards and all relevant marks for me at the end of the debate.
I have been pretty involved in policy topic research for both the HS Arms sales topic and the College Space topic. I have judged almost 100 debates this year between the two (over 100 if you count camp tournament debates), and feel prepared to keep up with most innovations that occur.
2020 Post-Season Updates
Let your partner talk in their cx, if you don't I'll unapologetically dock your speaker points
Be respectful of everyone's time. In online debates, things will go wrong and take "tech time." That means you have to be more on top of your game than usual with regards to things like setting up the email chain, going to the bathroom, etc.
On arms sales, I have seen a lot of 2ac's really mess up answering circumvention but I've seen very few 2nr's care about that.
Argument non-specific things
Debate off your flow, don't just read scripts
There are some things I care about more than most judges and some things I care about a lot less. I care about everyone being respectful of each other, debates being educational, engaging good arguments and dismissing bad arguments, evidence quality (including highlighting quality), strategic vision, and narrative/argument packaging. I really, really don't care about arguments anybody outside of this debate has made, making judgements about the character or intentions of the debaters as people, how "embarrassing" cross-x was, or the quantity of cards read on a particular issue (I much prefer to hear arguments about quality).
I am not likely to be impressed by your run and gun strategy. I generally think teams are not flippant enough at responding to incomplete, terrible arguments (cp's that are only text, da's with missing uq and internal links, advantages with no solvency evidence, 1 card k's with no link or alt in the 1nc). If a complete argument hasn't been presented, you are not expected to answer a complete argument. My advice? 1. Read complete arguments 2. Be correct about what is and isn't a complete argument. 3. Be bold with your choices
I'm probably not the best judge for affs that say they are basically the status quo so there's no da.
Turns case has been relevant in a lot of rfd's I've given
I am really bad for cp's that do not have topic-specific evidence (see: con-con on the space topic) or any evidence in the 1nc
I think I'm more persuadable than most on well explained defensive arguments to a cp like perm shields the link or cp links to the net benefit.
There are two types of soft left affs. Type 1 is "ignore DAs because they are improbable." Type 2 is "we are going to beat DAs on good specific defensive arguments and use our framing page to explain why offense/defense doesn't really make sense." Type 1 is much more common, type 2 is much more persuasive.
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
"New affs bad" is a waste of breath.
Framework vs K affs
Historically I am very good for the neg in these debates, I suspect more than most people who (semi)frequently judge 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
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
I usually determine that negs beat the aff's "plan focus good" framework. This isn't for ideological reasons (honestly quite the opposite) but the block usually has several offensive arguments, cards, defense to aff standards, and the 1ar usually just says "moots the aff that's unfair debate is a game" and moves on.
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.