Briefest possible summary

Former policy debater, one hard and fast rule:

1. Read an aff with a plan text. If you don't, I'll vote neg.

Other, but Important

Tech>>Truth

If an argument is new in the 2NR/2AR, it doesn't exist. If the 1AR reads a new advantage, or the neg block a new off-case position, no they didn't. I take a pretty firm stance here, debate is about clash so you need to say your arguments early enough for others to clash with them.

Be nice to each PLEASE. This is a fun activity, I get that from your side of the room it is very stressful and competitive, but from my side of the room it is not nearly that serious. Just try to get closer to my side of the room sometimes, I guess is what I'm saying.

I'd prefer to disclose, unless we're in a time crunch. Please ask me questions or argue with me in the RFD, that's the best part (I'm being very close to fully serious).

T

I loved, loved T as a debater and would like to see more 2NRs on T! I think that having a clear internal link chain from violation to fairness/education is important and a neglected area that negatives often skip over.

I have never, and may never, understand what "reasonability" is or how to evaluate it. I'm willing to vote for neg on T if they do it well, even if the aff is really common or clearly intended as part of the topic - so affs, don't scandalously undercover T in the 2AC.

Theory

I like a lot of theory arguments. Again, my philosophy is that you need to win the argument here - not just point out how common or obviously okay your practice is. My bias is against both conditionality and speed, so a slow aff team going for condo bad would be a dream for me. I think that good theory debates should look a lot like good T debates: interpretation, violation, internal links, impacts.

I think single-line theory arguments that are expanded into whole speeches if dropped are a cheap trick, but if the theory argument starts off decently fleshed out and has a completed structure (interp, violation, impacts), and then is dropped, I'm likely to vote on it (AKA don't drop theory).

CP

I'm generally skeptical of process-type counterplans, except for states + federalism. In fact, I probably lean aff on CP theory mostly.

I tend towards the position that the aff plan is as vague or specific as necessary to allow for permutations to process CPs (e.g. supreme court CP) and that fiat usually prevents a link to any attached politics DAs. That said, this is just my personal bias and I have been convinced by politics DA + process CP before.

DA

I love me a good nuclear war impact as much as any policy nerd. Straight turns are cool, but I also like affirmative defense on DAs. A lot of internal link chains are really shaky, if the aff hits this hard, I'm willing to assign 0% risk of extinction and ignore the flow.


Ks

I was a K debater for much of my time in debate, on both the aff and neg. That said, I'm pretty convinced that affs should have plan texts and try to be topical.

I like Ks with links, and am skeptical of the link in many instances. This should inform your affirmative strategy against a K!

History

Former policy debater from Juan Diego, with some, limited, national success (won a bid to the TOC my Junior year). I was a 2N my whole career. I did the education, immigration, arms sales, and criminal justice topics.

Hello, my name is Dylan Koerselman. All I want you to do is to try hard and do your best. Have fun!

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

she/her

I do oo, extempt, and impromtu. I have a little exerperience in LD. Besides doing debate, I also participate in theatre

general

don't be rude

if you say anything racist, homophobic, or sexist I will lower your speaks.

If you are being disruptive during another person's speech, I will knock your speaks.

For virtual tournaments.

mute yourself when you're not speaking

when not giving your speech turn off your camera, this just helps with bandwidth.

speaker point ranking

28-30- outstanding

26-27- above average

25- average

20-24- approaching average

15-19- needs a lot of work

anything below 10- was rude, sexist, homphobic, sexist, or racist.

I am pretty lienant with speaker points, so I rarely give out anything below 25.

(if you read, my paradigm, it shows you are willing to make the extra effort. I will boost your speaks. just tell me you did)

Speech

I will rank on organization, clarity, and delivary

for exempt: it's important you have evidence, it is also important to explain your evidence and how it connects to the question.

for interpt: I will be looking for, execution, motivation ( why do you walk over there?), and how you deliver your speech. I want you to show me, your interpretation, not just reading a script. Blocking is also important, but like mentioned early has to have motivation. Most importantly the interpretation is the most important part.

Debate

spreading is fine. Just speak clearly. And include me in the chain (amaya.r616@slcstudents.org)

ks can be interesting, if you explain it well.

I will be voting who weighed arguments best.

Good luck, you are going to do amazing!

For local tournaments

I think that if you are going to do progressive debate at a tournament where your opponent is more traditional it would be great for you to have some way they could read your case if you are spreading. I don't think it is constructive or education to not assist someone who is unfamiliar with terminology or specific types of cases.

Additionally, while it is probably my preference to judge more progressive arguments I would prefer to watch a good traditional debate than a mediocre progressive debate.

LD

This is the event I’m most familiar with. I competed in highschool and am good with most types of arguments. Honestly just do what you feel most comfortable with.

K arguments

I am comfortable judging k-affs, performance Ks and regular Ks.

I love a good K and am familiar with a lot of the literature. If it is something obscure I need you to explain the K (for my sake and the sake of your opponents.

CPs

go for it

Topicality

I need weighing against counter-interp. no RVIs plz

Theory

For both theory and topicality I need them to be justified. I don't think an excessive theory shell makes sense at all strategically nor do I believe that it is a good use of time.

Policy

Good with whatever, if you have any specific questions lmk. Please include me in the email chain.

Public Forum

I’m a flow judge, am good with speed and I’m really okay with whatever you want to run. Please, please, please use sign-posting and clear extensions. line-by-line is helpful for everybody in the room.

If you are going to claim an opponent is violating the rules, I need this to actually be the case. Particularly due to time constraints I really don’t want to watch a debate about the rules of debate if the argument of abuse is not grounded - it’s honestly a waste of your time, your opponent’s time and my time.

Random bits and pieces

1. I’m not going to be flowing cross-x, I view it as mainly for the benefit of debaters.

2. I don’t have any preference around sitting or standing, just do whatever is comfortable.

3. I have a weak immune system, please do not shake my hand.

email: claire.e.smith@me.com