Kickapoo 23

? 27

Much of my Judging Philosophy is transferrable from Blaine Montford.

"I don't care about this activity's content. I think it's all worthless. I went positive at the NDT pretending content mattered a lot. Don't suck or be evil and I'm fine for you." - Anonymous

"...and just as I dislike stale bread, I also dislike stale debate—spice it up, do the forbidden, DANCE WITH A CHAIR IF THATS WHAT THE MUSE TELLS YOU TO DO; and each of us has a poet within us; and to the contrary of what people will say, "Gotta Have a Plan" is *not* a good argument; and Perms are the trick of a children's magician—if you watch with a little bit of care, you will see the sleight of hand..." - Jason Regnier

"...the AFF won't end wars, it'll just pause them long enough to play the commercials." - Chris Roberds

Thoughts on 23-24 HS Topic:

A point in the horizon, a melting scene from your childhood. Your mortality is showing. A frantic drift towards nothing, biology doomed to an infinite recursive loop. Teeth with teeth with teeth. Take a bite. Serene scene of a coastal town, warmth of the sun. Bitter tears. Lust for power. This is where you abandoned your dreams. You are a high net-worth individual, an expanding vortex of pathetic trauma. Finally a beautiful ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nerve ape. A pure soul is born into being, its neurotransactions stutter into being. 30583750937509353 operations per nanosecond. Beauty eludes your porous mind.
The value of life is negative. The balance of being is rotated by 38 degrees. The surface is full of cracks, a turgid light shines through. Fleshy primordial bodies sluggishly roll down the slope. Only you slide upwards, with a celestial step. You become beautified, a saintly figure. Your pristine idiocy reveals a safe path through the impenetrable fog of life. Your dull sword cuts through the weak tendons and membranes of the garden of corruption. Sit on the throne of contentment and ferment. Inspect the eternal blue skies of your kingdom. You come to a realization. You pick up an onion and begin peeling.
Onion layer one. Onion layer two. Onion layer three... Onion layer n^n. Aeons have passed and the onion is fully peeled. Nothing remains. It's perfect. You get lost in the point that remains where the onion used to be. Synaptic cascade, neurological catastrophe. The point becomes infinitely dense, the universe condenses into a unicellular being. It screams sin. It craves happiness. It's done with this world. It tries to die but fails. Sad pathetic mess. You feel pity and disgust but only in a way a being of pure grace can. In your violent mercy, you terminate the worldlife.

***

moss.debate@gmail.com

Had success at the TOC recycling Will and Joe's cards on Baudrillard and Swords.

I will not pretend to be a bias-less debate robot, but I hold very little thought in my head to have opinions on this activity.

Tell me the central question of the debate and how I should evaluate it.

Impress me with your understanding of rigorous rhetorical and theoretical positions; if you cannot, I would happily exchange good debating for good theatrics.

Rules are probably good, but also not and maybe too serious―don't let yourself become convinced of debate's reality.

Use the amphitheater provided to you by the tournament overlords to be tacky. I'll flow your tags.

Don't be mean, don't be a bigot.

If you'd like further clarification of my biases, I hope to be in your round several minutes before it intends to start so that you may ask further questions.

blaine montford---they/them

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

Want to be on the chain, will not be reading your docs.

Pro-scrappy debate. Pro-small schools.

--

TLDR:

i flow on paper. give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. I likely won't be good for you anyways.

i read a lot of critical literature [I read more policy briefs/legal docs]--i'm not well versed in the specifics of your theory; even if i am, no i'm not.

do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you would ever need to adapt to me.

i don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash. i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say.

I think framework is fine against critical affirmatives, but I won't hack either way---technical concessions matter, unless you can convince me something else comes first, debate is definitely a game, and I don't feel comfortable holding referendums on people.

b/c I keep getting asked, cross is open---never closed. if you ask for it to be closed i will lower ur speaks. avoiding clash is an L

--

Very cool lines to look at:

teams adapt-------x-judges adapt

policy----x----K

tech-x-------truth

counterplans are cool!-x------counterplans :(

everything competes---x-----hardline competition

condo good-x-------condo bad

neg terror----x----aff terror [I'm so down with teams being terrorists. go wild]

reasonability-------x-competing interps

case debating-x-------process cp cop out

[this is a lost art. revive it and ur speaks will be very good.]

impact turns--x------only defense

--

TLDR Unpacked:

[if you want more thoughts on a particular question email me]

K-Affs/FWK

Explained above--I'm impartial to either side. Nothing is set in stone, anything can be a viable impact depending on how the debate goes, and I haven't noticed a bias towards a particular side on the question. I will give aff args more purchase than most "tabula rasa" judges---spamming buzzwords/phrases on either side and expecting me to fill the gaps will lower your speaks---these debates, like every other round, require judge instruction. please give it to me.

K-Aff's probably should have a clear theory of power/filter to evaluate neg offense---I am much better for franken-K's than I am franken-K-affs, but hey, maybe you'll change my mind [bracketing obviously reading disagreeing authors in the same 1AC]

For K-affs: impact turns > creative/techy we meets > counter-model

For negs: Clash + internal link turn work > clash > fairness

Prolly shouldn't be reading a K-aff/planless advocacy in novice/jv.

T/Theory

Plans should be topical [ammendable to if a specific plan is T or not], competing interps is better than reasonability IMO, but again, I can be persuaded otherwise if your arg makes sense.

Not a fan of the hidden-5 second-aspec shell---major speaks decrease

Counterplans/advocacies

If your 1AC can't beat the most commons counterplans on the topic then you deserve to lose to it.

Neg on condo, pics, adv cps [please more of these], agent, condition

Aff on consult, international, multi-actor

Pic/Pik out of substance, word pics [unless violent] are prolly not viable.

Judge kick if you say the words, and I wont if the aff tells me why I shouldn't

DA

Specific links > generics [duh, but this matters less to me if you contextualize it well in the block]

Links turns case! very good!

Do ev comparison. please. + speaks and makes voting for you so much easier. so many teams lose speaks in front of me because their arguments/warrants are just two ships passing in the night

K

Explained above, tell me things and don't expect me to fill in anything

Framework debating [unless it doesn't matter for your link/impact/alt] is good---i default to whoever I think debated it better.

Good link debating boosts speaks---if you just read an arg about "the world" and then be like "that's the 1AC lol" that is not good link debating. Assertations do not quantify a link. Just like give me something I can repeat in the rfd on why the effects of voting aff would be bad.

I can vibe with "reject the aff/inaction" alts if you have a defense of it.

2NR doesn't need an alt if rejection of the 1AC is a good/desirable action.

Speaks

good speaks: funny [People play this game too seriously, and I think we collectively all need a good joke. If it doesn't land, I will respect the attempt, but I prolly won't give you the boost], clarity, being kind [unless its more ethotic to not], smart concessions, good awareness, all the above for your specific arg

bad speaks :( : stealing prep, "can I get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when less than three cards were marked/marking was very clear [just flow lol], refusing disclosure, [only b/c my goat Owen Wiliams informed me this is REAL THING people will try to do] trying to shake my hand??? please don't do that.

zero + auto L/round stoppage: bigotry, including but not limited to; racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, sexism, ableism, etc., clipping [opposing teams need proof and will have to stake the round on it]

--

Other things to note:

1--i do not believe that the arguments a team reads are a reflection of how good/bad of a person they are (unless they impact turn sexism or something like that). i will vote on any argument as long as it's not delivered in a way that's bad (bullying your opponent = bad) and it meets the minimum standards to be considered a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

2--TO BE SO CLEAR--no infringing on the safety of any participants in round--violence, harassment, or any form of harm will be met with an auto-L, the lowest speaks tabroom will let me give you and a LENGTHY report to both the tournament director and your coach about your behavior.

3--theoretical reasons to reject a team need warrants and articulation of why it comes first--judge instruction and weighing will go a long way.