I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

Interlake 23, Emory 27.

Email: michi.debate@gmail.com. Appreciate this subject line: Tournament - Round X - Team Code Aff v. Team Code Neg.

TL: I've said both policy and K and I am good to judge either. I will flow the debate straight down and evaluate the debate technically, following 2NR/2AR judge instruction. I will try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Minimal HS topic knowledge so overexplain acronyms/technical terms, but I have taken AP Micro/Macro for what it's worth. I have opinions about debate (below), but I am also very gullible and tech > truth. I think I am fairly expressive but don't read into it too much. I get to end the debate for -isms.

Clash: I've said the K Aff, but my AT: T win rate was/is abysmal, so good for either side! Aff notes: I find impact turns strategic, dislike when the 2AR is too new, impact comparison please. Neg notes: I find ballot scope arguments persuasive, limits DA needs a case-list, should adopt Aff language when answering offense.

K: Framework first, I will decide an interpretation and work from there. K teams should leverage tricks (framework, PIK, link turns case, ballot proximity, etc.) to moot/turn/outweigh the Aff. Aff teams should impact turn for wins or link turn for speaker points (lol).

Policy: No hot takes, slow down on T/theory/analytics.

My name is Jack Trent, and I'm in my 5th year of competitive debate. I currently debate at William Jewell College doing parliamentary debate on the NPDA/NPTE circuit. I come from a policy/puff debate background and have debated against and ran most forms of argumentation and am familiar with the basic structure of these arguments and understand how they should be deployed in round. Be sure to warrant your arguments; don't just spit out as many arguments as you can; make sure you are telling me why these arguments are important. I like to call myself a game theorist judge, so anything can be ran as long as there is evidence behind it

First of all, I am a strong believer in the debate space being a platform for the debaters, and that always takes precedence. You can do whatever you like within the space if you feel that is your best method for expressing yourself.

The subsidiary claim here is that I tend to lean towards truth over tech. I would offer my philosophy as this: The only way to judge a debate on its merits is based on an evaluation of your ability to advance thesis-level claims to control the narrative of argumentation occurring. I don't care about your blippy 5th and 6th links or shallow impacts, impact calculus and link stories are always primarily filtered through the feasibility of the position FIRST. If you aren't putting offense on the flow justifying your method then my default weighing mechanism falls to the links and the internal structure of the position. Who most sufficiently rationalizes a reason to think their opposition is bad, or is invested in inherently problematic systems?

Speed - You do you, I'll keep up but be prepared to defend it just like everything else in the debate.

FW - If you plan on running any non-policy type arguments, you probably need a framework page. Framework for me is the lens through which I filter the rest of the flow. So this means you probably don't want to concede framework in most instances.

Theory - Theory is always the most important argument in the round if brought up. The ability for the debate to progress fairly and equitably is always of the utmost importance. If you are going to argue theory, you need to contextualize and describe the in-round abuse and explain how whatever violation has happened has altered the fair and equitable progression of the round. Impact your argument out so that I can weigh it. This means articulate whatever violation you isolate as being necessarily productive of some sort of problematic logic. I need to know how the violation has harmed your ability to debate. Also make sure that you are running theory right. I need interps, violation, standards, and voters. Please don't just say education and fairness. Those are just words. You should go a bit deeper than that. Lastly, if you just don't know what to do against an argument and fall back on theory (it is usually pretty clear), that's fine, and I will vote for it if you win it, but just don't expect high speaks.

T - Many of my T preferences are similar to theory. Framework is a fair arg against non-t affs, but it probably needs to be your biggest offense otherwise it's hard for me to prioritize it if you don't.

Performance - Do it

K- I read Afropress, Antiblackness, Baudrillard etc. so im good with it just make sure you link to the res/aff and have a clear alt with solvency that you establish in the constructives

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask in round.