For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

junior at mclean hs (lms alumni). debated at gtoc if it means anything to you. add me to the email chain lisahu.kaboom@gmail.com

generally tech>truth though mickey args = will believe equally mickey responses

No prog experience, run at ur own risk

spreading/card dumping/docbotting will tank ur speaks

please EXTEND and WEIGH and fill up ur speech time pls!

dont be rude or obnoxious

tl:dr try ur best, hf and be sensible

if u have any questions, dont hesitate to ask b4 the round

MSPDP:

haven't debated this in years so the rules r rusty. although im p chill as long as u try ur best

assume i have zero topic knowledge

if frameworks are read there better be top level clash otherwise i'll default the aff fw

will evaluate counterplans on neg although you will have burden of proof to explain why ur counterplan is likely to happen

i love love love good pois so try to make some though its ok if u cant answer them (dont pull a sneaky on protected time)

my speaker point range is generally 10-14 (with exceptions on both ends). i'll usually be pretty generous.

PF:

extend anything you want me to evaluate through second half. if its not in both summary and final i wont be looking at it

please please please weigh and do the impact calculus for me otherwise i'll have to do it myself which may not end well for you

defense is NOT sticky please frontline in 2nd reb

i wont flow cross xd but i will up speaks if ur funni

default 30 speaks in bubble round for both teams

Extra:

debate is fun, don't stress too much

+0.5 speaks if u spin in a circle while reading a turn

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

McLean '26 | Coach for Longfellow

Questions & Evidence >> ryan.jkg10@gmail.com

I believe that it is my responsibility as a judge to adapt to how you debate. After all, I can't even think of all my preferences to write down on this one page. Debate is a cool community and I sincerely hope that you continue participating in this activity. Debate gets really tense sometimes but, it can be fun (trust me). Please be respectful to both me and others.

My RFD’s are normally short so please feel free to ask questions afterwards.

MSPDP

Talk naturally like a conversation. You don’t have to talk insanely fast or fill every second of your time with words.

POI's should be short and No Heckling

Resolving Clash is important It's impossible to vote if you don't compare arguments or leave the comparison messy. Whoever wins the clash pretty much has the path to weighing.

Weighing is how I vote Be creative and compare the impacts in different ways. For example, "Our argument causes their impact to happen". Address opponent's weighing in following speeches (Meta-weighing).

Speaker Points start at 10/20 and you can make it go up. Very rarely does it go below 10.

PF

Flay, Tech > Truth

Win Offense, Win weighing, Win round

Link weighing > Impact weighing

No response means conceded

I don’t get progressive debate, but judging might give me useful experience

In advance, I apologize that my PF paradigm is not as detailed as the MSPDP one

1. Speaking Style: Please speak clearly especially when you spread if you want to be understood. If I can't clearly hear your points, I won't be able to flow them.
2. Clarity: Make sure you tie your contentions and refutes to the resolution. Please signpost in your refutes.
3. Structure your final rebuttals in a format that is easy for the judge to organize. Off-time roadmaps are very helpful.
4. Engage the totality of your opponents' arguments. Use time for cross-ex wisely.
5. Cite LD rules where you can.
6. Good luck and have fun!

Hello Debaters!

A few reminders.

1. Make sure to speak clearly and confidently.
2. Please refrain from making too much noise when others/opponents are speaking.
3. I will do my very best to judge fairly, good luck everyone!