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.

I am new to judging high school debates and prefer that you speak clearly and slowly. I will be tracking the arguments and the rebuttals. I'll also be looking for strong arguments that use reputable sources.

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.

PF

Flay, Tech > Truth

Win Offense, Win weighing, Win round

No response means conceded

I am a parent judge. I like people that talk slowly - don't rush through your info. I like cross-fire but I need to be able to hear both sides. I value refitrs and weighs equally. I weigh a combination of anecdotal, logical and data-driven evidence.