Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

A bit of background:
I debated policy 3ish years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

Most of what is below is tailored towards policy debate:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes for Christ's sake.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

Name: Garrett Oakley

Current Affiliation: Will Rogers College High School

Conflicts: Tulsa Debate League, Will Rogers College High School

Debate Experience: College IPDA, Coaching 2 years of Policy.

Judged approximately Eighteen Rounds in the last year.

Preferred Arguments:

1. Impact Calculus

2. Sensible K's.

3. Counter-Plans

4. Stock Issues

Does not prefer these types of arguments:

1. A-Spec

2. Topicality without evidence from the round, such as examples of arguments that can’t be used because of bad interpretation of the resolution.

3. Condo/Theory

Stylistic Preferences:

1. Line-by-line rebuttals

2. Signposting, when switching from on-case to off-case arguments

3. Off-the-clock road maps

4. Underviews, that help me understand what you are talking about

Stylistic Dislikes

1. Trying to say rebuttals in cross-examination. Not asking questions.

2. Not using all your speech time.

3. Not using prep time.

My dream debate round includes two teams debating over a plan, with alternatives to the plan being brought up. Eventaully, the debate comes down to the possible impacts of each plan.

please include me on the email chain: hayley.ortwein@outlook.com

Jenks '22, KU '26

I'll vote you down if you're rude or creepy

I debated 4 years of hs and I now debate in college

i have debated both policy and kritical stuff but definitely have way more policy experience, so make sure you explain well. i will listen to any style though

i have mostly been a 2n so i understand reading some weird stuff on neg just don't make a bigoted argument and ill hear it out

judge instruction and impact calc are really important to me