Mark Skoglund Paradigm

Last changed 12/21 11:03A CDT

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesdn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Shawnee Mission North Invitational 11/16/2019 Open R5 4 Pagadala & Jacobs 21 Welsh & Davenport Neg
Shawnee Mission North Invitational 11/16/2019 Open R3 19 Jonah Muro 17 Ozegovic & Smith Aff
Shawnee Mission North Invitational 11/16/2019 Open R2 21 Altenhofen & Wombwell 7 Forsyth & Grasser Neg
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 DCI Qtr 17 Babcock & Babcock 6 Krambeer & Rose Aff Aff on a 2-1
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 DCI R5 8 Flory & Stella 4 Angulo & Moya Aff
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 KDC R4 22 Little & McWilliams 24 Reed & Lynn Aff
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 DCI R3 6 Davidson & Vasquez 1 Khan & Underwood Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA OFs 1C SM East 16C BV Northwest Neg Neg on a 2-1
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R6 12B Free State 13D SM West Neg
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R4 19B BV West 6C Dodge City Neg
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R2 2B Lawrence 15C Washburn Rural Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R1 8A Olathe West 7B Garden City Aff
Kansas Championship Series 1/4/2019 DCI R5 Topeka RR Blue Valley Southwest SS Neg
Kansas Championship Series 1/4/2019 DCI R2 Topeka JC Lawrence Free State BW Aff
Kansas Championship Series 1/4/2019 DCI R1 Lawrence DR Salina South DV Aff
East Kansas District Tournament 12/7/2018 LD R4 L Amelia Vasquez F Tyler Boutte Neg Aff on a 2-1
East Kansas District Tournament 12/7/2018 LD R2 A Alex McCarthy B Samuel Sokoloff Aff Aff on a 3-0
Washburn Rural Invitational 9/15/2017 VDB8 Var 5 Blue Valley Southwest HH Lawrence Free State LG Neg
Washburn Rural Invitational 9/15/2017 VDB8 Var 4 Kapaun Mount Carmel BS Blue Valley North CM Neg
Washburn Rural Invitational 9/15/2017 VDB8 Var 3 Shawnee Mission East MR Shawnee Heights BL Aff
Washburn Rural Invitational 9/15/2017 VDB8 Var 1 Shawnee Mission Northwest KO Shawnee Mission East AW Aff
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 OFs 07C Lawrence Free State LS 08D Blue Valley West BN Neg Neg on a 3-0
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 DOFs 15A Shawnee Mission Northwest KO 03B Shawnee Mission East CR Aff Aff on a 3-0
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 R5 04B Blue Valley CO 12A Olathe North EA Neg
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 R3 16B Junction City HP 06B Dodge City SN Neg
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 R2 12C Olathe North SM 06C Dodge City AG Aff
KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 1/27/2017 KSDB8 R1 08A Blue Valley West SS 22A Olathe East DO Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI Octos Cabot Buckner & Smith Lansing Wong & Bircher Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R6 Kapaun Mount Carmel Engle & Doolittle Blue Valley West Vasudevan & Schrag Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R5 Millard North Kim & Le Kapaun Mount Carmel Arriaga & Hessman Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R4 Kapaun Mount Carmel Lett & Salgado Blue Valley West Ma & Garimella Aff