Debate

Klein Collins '24

I have been doing Speech and Debate for 6 years, I've competed in extemp, congress, oratory, informative, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and impromptu; however, I'm well versed in prose and poetry I have experience as a judge and will judge fairly and base ranks solely on performance in rounds.

Extemp:

Try to have an organized speech with a clear Line of Reasoning(LOR). I want to be able to understand what you say clearly. I understand that stuttering happens, so I won't hold it against you unless it's excessive and prevents me from understanding what you're talking about. Time is key, try to put as much in as you can without too much repetition and make sure to include sources with their dates, I appreciate at least 4 different sources and dates can be as simple as " January of 2023". Being confident is very important in rounds so be assertive when you speak. Also, make sure you're not trying to debate, be conversational and engage the audience, professionally of course.

Congress:

Sponsorship- Have a well-prepared speech that supports the affirmative side. Make me understand the docket and why I should agree with your side. Offer strong points and have relevant evidence to support your claim. Be clear with your arguments and set up the round for future speeches.

Speeches- Have a good LOR and bring new points along when possible. I appreciate clash when applicable because it gives you greater credibility. If you're able to prove someone else wrong, I suggest you take that chance because I do think that's the point of this debate. Although I appreciate clash, do not make that your whole speech, you need to offer some sort of new idea or evidence that hasn't been as emphasized.

Presiding Officer- I will be assessing how you handle time and address mistakes. Have a clear precedence and recency chart in whatever manner you prefer. Also, I like when the P.O. is effective and watches time well. Be confident in your role, make sure you are the one controlling the round, don't let the chamber run the round. You should also be well informed/ understand the procedures and times well.

Questioning- Questions should be respectful and not used just because you need speaker points. Make sure you have questions that you think could be beneficial to yourself/ your side in the round.

Precedence- I suggest you watch your precedence, make sure you don't waste it. Be strategic in how you choose to spend it; however, I won't dock you on it.

Oratory:

For oratory, I want to be able to enjoy the presentation. Humor is great, but if you don't have humor, that's fine. I like seeing students walk based on their points, and want to see a clear connection between your points and resolution. I understand it is tough to memorize such speeches; however, since this event is based on memorization, I will dock you if there is visible distress or pauses.

Impromptu

I understand the short prep time and therefore, don't have many problems with impromptu. Since it is a speech event, I want to be able to see your personality and understand your point of view and LOR.

Lincoln Douglas

Don't spread, but I appreciate speed.

∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨

UIL: I know UIL is supposed to be more "traditional," but you're welcome to be as techy as you want as long as you're sharing cases!

Shortcuts

1 - Policy/K

2 - Trad

3 - Phil

4 - Theory/T

Strike - Tricks

Tech > Truth

Fairness = Education

Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good

I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com

----------

Background

Klein Collins '22

Texas '26 (History & Government)

I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."

Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.

----------

Logistics

In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.

I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.

Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!

When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.

I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.

I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!

I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).

I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.

I don't keep time. Time yourselves!

I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.

----------

Trad

As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."

Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!

I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.

Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!

----------

Policy

If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."

I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.

CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.

----------

K

I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.

Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative

K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.

While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.

Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess

---------

T

I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.

Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.

----------

Phil

Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.

I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.

Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)

Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism

----------

Theory

I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.

I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.

STOP SAYING DTD!

I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.

----------

Tricks

I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.

----------

PF

All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).

My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.

Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.

I debated for 4 years in Texas in LD and PF and also competed in OO, INFO, IMP, and EXT. I currently compete for the Texas Speech team in Extemp, Impromptu, and public address events.

In terms of my preferences for LD/PF, I heavily value the framework debate and would rather you emphasize that than simply reading off numerous cards with no real clash.

As a judge, clear signposting is also very important.

I will make sure to extend arguments across the flow, but you need to explain what the argument entails, not just the card.

Speed is not necessarily a problem (if used well and appropriately), but I would prefer you avoid spreading and make sure to enunciate, especially tags and impacts.

On that note, aside from the framework, I weigh impact heavily.

Most importantly, please be civil. I know that CX and GCF have the tendency to get heated, but I don't think there is any place for disrespectful behavior or actions in a round that make anyone feel unsafe, unheard, or discounted.

For extemp, unified analysis is my preferred speech structure. I think it enables the speaker to showcase their existing background knowledge of a topic (something I would like to see demonstrated) as well as the new argument they're constructing during prep. Have your tags and sources memorized when you come into the round. Make sure, especially in FX, that your analyses and impacts are not from an ethnocentric view and take into account a broader perspective than just your own.

I have been doing Speech and Debate for four years, and have competed in the events Original Oratory, and Informative Speaking. I have experience as a judge and will be impartial with each decision I make.

IE Events

The thing I look for when watching IE events is the passion behind one's performance. It should be clear and concise. As I watch your performance I want to be able to feel how important this subject is to you. It shouldn't just be you speaking on your topic, but your tone of voice and hand gestures show how one should feel listening to the performance. I would also say to try and find a middle ground with your gestures. the gesture you may use should not distract the judge from what is being said. It should be a way to enhance the words being said. Overall what I would say is to practice as much as possible, learn from your mistakes, and all of you will do amazing!

Debate Events

I do not have much experience in Debate events, However, I am educated on how to judge these events, so I will judge impartially, and follow the criteria of how these events must be judged

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance. I also look for understanding of character or person you are portraying.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate events- Not as familiar , but i look for well spoken, clear ,factual speaking.

Conflicts- Klein Collins High School