Girl just debate lol

I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Debate - Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed (though I am biased toward slower debates). Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the obvious exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good unless the neg reads a bajillion CPs and then I'm happy to listen to that debate.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

I think Ks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm most willing to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

Get good.

I appreciate explaining cards and arguments. Displaying knowledge of the topic is extremely important. Please don't speed read. Topicality is important, but I will ignore it without standards and voters. I am high flow, and I will follow all of the arguments you give me.

Hello, my name is Kaven and I have done High School Debate and Forensics for three years. I have been a judge for two years and have judged many different novice online tournaments.

Please either add me to the email chain or speech drop: oloughlinkaven@haydencatholic.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main things:

-Please do not lie and say you said something that you didn't say, stick to what you said don't change it because you messed up. This will result in an automatic loss.

-Be respectful in the round, there is no point in being a jerk because the other team messed something up.

-I do consider cx in my decision if you trip someone up and then show that.

-I am perfectly ok with speed but if you are speaking fast then slide the doc so I can follow it easier

-Make sure that you have complete off-case positions, don't run a T with only a violation and no voters or a DA with no clear link chain, I will not vote on half-finished arguments

-Please please use all of your Cross Ex times so that your partner can get some extra prep time, I don't care if you just sit there and sing broadway show tunes just say something to keep the time going.

-Same with speeches don't ever just not give a speech go up there and say random stuff.

Topicality:

-I will vote on Topicality, I do like seeing it in a round but make sure that it is valid and real not just a time waster. I do not like watching things run just to waste the affirmative team's time, there is no point to this, and is just lazy.

-Do it if you think that the aff is not topical and that you can convince me. I think that each team should have competing interpretations and both teams argue limits, ground, fairness, etc. Don't run T if the aff is obviously topical, please.

CounterPlans:

-I do like Counterplans but if you are going to run one please make sure that you show that it is better than the affirmative plan. Make sure that you have solvency for it, as well as either an internal or net benefit so you can have some impact calculus as to why it solves better stuff than the affirmative.

K's:

-I don't prefer Kritiks, but if you choose to run one I will listen, pay attention and follow it.

On Case:

-I vote heavily on case arguments. If you are on the Affirmative side make sure to show me that your plan will solve and is worth voting on. If you are on the Negative show me how the Aff's plan won't solve and just won't work.

-Please please use judge direction throughout the round. In your rebuttals, you should be telling me what I should be voting for in the debate and why your side has won. Even if you know you lost keep trying don't just give up. Confidence goes a long way.

-This is your debate, make it all yours. Run what you want this paradigm is just what I like/prefer, you don't have to use this as a guide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't call me judge just call me Kaven

If you have any questions ask me before the round starts or feel free to send me an email

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.

Memory args will be an Automatic loss.Otherwise I don't care.