Jeffrey Kahn Paradigm

Last changed 10 June 2021 5:50 PM EDT

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last update: 6/10/21

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

I like a quick, technical debate (due to my Policy background) - if I was starting debate today, I would be a PFer. Major difference from what I used to do is that in PF drops are not death because of the weird way speeches match up. But you should warrant and impact your claims throughout the debate so I don't have to! Speed is good when it gets us depth, not as much if it gets us breadth.

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional/LARP. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer "LARP" debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. There should be a real clear topical connection that you can explain to me, not because LD is to train future lawyers talking to regular people, but because I can't digest your entire philosopher in the tiny pieces you are feeding me.

If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. For all of the flaws in the structure of debate and the debate community, this is the only way to have a productive debate. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I can shift to other paradigms, however, I have never been able to get into abstract philosophy, especially at the speed of a policy round. I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt - otherwise you've got a non-unique philosophical disad.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. Clash is important. Don't structurally avoid clash. But you also have to resolve the issues of clash. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence, I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not, for example, get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Warrantless arguments aren't worth a whole lot. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus. I don't reject shaky evidence out of hand - but defense can win rounds.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. I hate voting on the dropped #14 or watching the 1AR get outspread with 8 blippy disads. Clarity is important. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not anti-speed, but I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing and listening.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent (she loves LD!) to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge. Don't take yourselves too seriously, but don't waste my time.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
PCFL 1 HS 2021-10-08 LDBT R2 Ballot Test DE Ballot Test DS Neg
PCFL 1 HS 2021-10-08 JVPF R1 Harriton BB Unionville AC Pro
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R3 9963 9525 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R3 9903 9723 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R3 9226 9171 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R3 9622 9753 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R2 9380 9070 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R2 9788 9550 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R2 9350 9909 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R2 9196 9862 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R1 9215 9421 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R1 9832 9086 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R1 9607 9026 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R1 9034 9488 Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF V Quads Valencia NP Brentwood KM Pro Pro 3-0
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF RS R4 Henry Clay PH CR North PS Pro
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF RS R4 Newton South LL Montgomery Blair CY Con
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF V R3 Plano West SB Solon KA Pro
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF V R3 Carmel Valley Independent GZ University CT Con
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF V R2 Quarry Lane KJ Poly Prep Country Day HS Con
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK HS 2020-09-12 PF V R2 Lake Highland Prep KG Henry Clay WL Con
Valley Forge District Tournament HS 2020-03-06 CX R1 141 101 Neg Neg 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 XDB Finals K624 K161 Neg Neg 4-3
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 CX R5 Blue Valley North AL Fullerton Union GK Aff
Valley Forge District Tournament HS 2019-03-08 CX R2 P 407 E 401 Aff
Valley Forge District Tournament HS 2019-03-08 CX R1 C 409 J 403 Aff
2019 PCFL Varsity Finals and National Qualifiers HS 2019-03-02 VPF R4 AH 104 AG 121 Pro Pro 3-0
2019 PCFL Varsity Finals and National Qualifiers HS 2019-03-02 VCX Bracke AE 126 AM 136 Aff Aff 3-0
2019 PCFL Varsity Finals and National Qualifiers HS 2019-03-02 VLD R3 AM 409 AE 406 Aff Aff 2-1
2019 PCFL Varsity Finals and National Qualifiers HS 2019-03-02 VLD R2 AW 404 AM 411 Neg Aff 2-1
2019 PCFL Varsity Finals and National Qualifiers HS 2019-03-02 VLD R1 AM 402 AG 408 Aff Aff 2-1
Four Round February PCFL at Council Rock North HS 2019-02-16 VLD R3 CR North AS Unionville KL Aff
Four Round February PCFL at Council Rock North HS 2019-02-16 VCX R1 William Tennent WM CR North MS Aff
Just January PCFL at Archbishop Wood HS 2019-01-25 JVCX R2 Unionville SW CR North MS Aff
Just January PCFL at Archbishop Wood HS 2019-01-25 VCX R1 La Salle CQ William Tennent CC Aff
PCFL Double Entry December at Bishop Shanahan HS 2018-12-15 VPF R2 CR North KW Unionville RS Con
PCFL Double Entry December at Bishop Shanahan HS 2018-12-15 VLD R1 Unionville DJ CR North AS Aff
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF Double Horace Mann SM Bronx HS Of Science OS Con Con 2-1
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF Run Of Hackley EM Summit SY Con Con 3-0
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R6 West Orange IB Lexington WP Pro
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R6 Freehold Township TG Randolph DT Pro
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R4 Newton South SJ Millburn AZ Con
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R4 Delbarton LT Berkeley Carroll SW Pro
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R2 Regis LM McDowell GL Con
The Princeton Classic HS 2018-11-30 PF R2 Bard HS Early College Queens NM Randolph US Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2018-04-28 GPF Quarte Millburn CZ Poly Prep Country Day FS Pro Pro 3-0
Tournament of Champions MS 2018-04-28 GPF Runoff Blake GM SPA AK Con Con 2-1
Tournament of Champions HS 2018-04-28 GPF R3 L C Anderson HE Ardrey Kell HB Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2018-04-28 GPF R2 Altamont CZ Archbishop Mitty KV Con
Strath Haven Novcember Big Questions HS 2017-11-01 BQ R3 Davidson & Driscoll Mandel & Zeibekis Aff
Strath Haven Novcember Big Questions HS 2017-11-01 BQ R2 Ding & Lu Lee & Fox Aff
Strath Haven Novcember Big Questions HS 2017-11-01 BQ R1 Lee & Fox Park & Sharmin Neg
Big Apple Bronx Round Robin HS 2017-10-12 PF R3 Nueva SP Hunter KK Con Con 2-0
Big Apple Bronx Round Robin HS 2017-10-12 PF R1 University CM Millburn ZC Pro Pro 2-0
Strath Haven Septober Big Questions HS 2017-09-11 BQ R3 Lofgren & Zhang Gong & Hollyer Aff
Strath Haven Septober Big Questions HS 2017-09-11 BQ R3 Kung & Corson Mendell Neg
Strath Haven Septober Big Questions HS 2017-09-11 BQ R2 Legate-Yang & Swartzentruber Pak & Bennett Aff
Strath Haven Septober Big Questions HS 2017-09-11 BQ R1 Gong & Hollyer Legate-Yang & Swartzentruber Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R7 Millburn CY Hawken HS Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R5 Michael Krop KH Durham PL Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R3 Evanston Twp BW Southlake Carroll FP Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 SPF R1 West Des Moines Valley JM Highland Rams CM Con
PCFL Qualifiers HS 2016-02-27 CX R1 R 904 X 906 Aff Aff 2-0
Villiger 36 Saint Josephs University HS 2015-11-21 CX R2 Bronx Science NL Broad Run MS Neg
Villiger 36 Saint Josephs University HS 2015-11-21 CX R1 Bronx Science RY Dominion RY Aff
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD Semis La Salle College CP Lexington WX Neg Aff 2-1
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD Quarte Unionville YL Lexington WX Neg Neg 3-0
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD Rd 4 Lexington ZG Newark Tech FR Aff
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD Rd 3 University MA Lexington WX Neg
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD Rd 2 Lexington JL La Salle College SQ Aff
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2015-02-14 PD R1 University CE Lexington LR Neg
UPenn Liberty Bell Classic HS 2014-02-15 CX R4 Unionville DL La Salle DG Neg
Electric City Invitational HS 2013-12-05 VCX R5 Lexington CD McDonogh NE Aff
Electric City Invitational HS 2013-12-05 VCX R3 Lexington LM Edgemont RH Aff
Electric City Invitational HS 2013-12-05 VCX R2 Lexington KL River Hil SS Aff