My email for speech documents is: logycdocs@gmail.com. Personal email for all other correspondence: mikekloster@gmail.com.

HS debate from 1991 - 1995. CEDA/NDT debate at Pace University from 1995 - 2000. I assistant coached at St. Marks from 2001-2004.

Long break until 2020.

I am currently coaching a new program.

1) How I pick a winner.

****** The first thing the 2NR and the 2AR should say is almost exactly this sentence: ******

The reason you should vote (aff / neg) is because __________________.

****************************************************************************

That will serve as your thesis as to why you win the debate. After the 2AR, I will then evaluate the flow, with as little intervention as possible, to see if you won the debate according to your own thesis. (You can provide more than one path to victory in your thesis). **see examples at end of paradigm.

Usually, my ballot will contain the exact thesis of one of the two teams. I try to avoid creating my own path to victory for a team.

2) Clarity

Speed it is great so long as you can speak clearly as well. I want to hear every syllable. When not judging on a panel - if I can't understand every word of your speech with perfect clarity, I will stop the timer, and ask you to stop and fix the issue. No penalty. Just want us on the same page.

3) Other Info

I love when debates are won in the library.

Power tagged / over-claimed cards:

Feel free to "retag" over-claimed cards as short cut to breaking internal link chains.

K-AFF:

These were invented during my long break from debate. I've judged one round of k-aff so far in JV as of 9/8/2021. In that one round, I voted neg on a counter kritik of academia that said the neg was plagiarizing the aff, which was good, because we need to rebel against academia, so I "voted neg to vote aff". That's just how that debate played out on the flow.

So far, I don't see myself casting my ballot as though I am starting a social movement or that it will have out-of-round impacts on the issues being discussed during the round. If I thought my ballot had out-of-round impacts on those issues, I think I would not limit my decision to what was discussed in the round, but rather I would intervene with my own research and opinions. Maybe I am missing something here, and you can explain it better.

** Examples of 2NR or 2AR thesis statements:

2NR: You should vote neg because the timeframe on the Russia/Ukraine war short circuits all other impacts in the round. Before resolving case impacts, you must determine if we have already died in a nuclear war.

2AR: You should vote aff because the deontological decision making paradigm means you must first decide if your action is ethical, before considering the consequences. Leaving current water policy in place is unethical because it directly harms the most vulnerable. This ethical duty comes first.