Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Hey

Alpharetta 26’

Please add me to the chain and send the chain out asap, before round starts chandwani.riaa@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff — read this—

• Be on time lets get the round started asap and send the chain quick, no one wants to be here all day.
• Be nice to everyone inside and outside the round, we are all here to learn and dont take losses to heart they are what help you grow.
• Clarity>Speed I can flow fast spearing thats clear, but no unclear spreading if I say clear more than 3 time in one speech I will stop flowing.
• If your opponents drop an argument tell me, also make sure you tell me why it would win you the debate.
• Make funny jokes key word funny.

Argument Specifics

I am open to voting on most arguments, but and not limited to (death good, sexism good, racism good, and usually any “ism” feel fell to clarify with me pre round if you have to)

Extend the arguments you want to go for.

Counter Plans

• Have a net benefit (internal or external)
• Frame the CP show me why it solves better than the aff.
• Know what the netbenifit is some people dont and when people ask in cross you should know both the (1n and 2n)
• Cp debates are fun, if they are done well.

DA

• DA’s on this topic are good.
• Have updated uniqueness if it’s a ptx da.
• Explain them well
• Impact calc on the DA— is defiantly key to winning.

K’s

• I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer everything, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.

T’s

• T debates are fun I enjoy them.
• Dont drop Standards
• Violation has to be legit— seen some crazy stuff lol.

Affs

• Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each.
• For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.

Speaker Points

I probs will end up giving speaks on the higher end - especially for novice debates

• Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
• 27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
• 28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
• 29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
• 29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
• 30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better

******Ways to improve your speaks include: being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't

*******Ways to ruin your speaks clipping cards, being rude in cross ex or any speeches, stealing prep.

DONT Clip Cards -- Lowest Speaks I can Give + Loss--- for refrence clipping cards is when u only read a part of the card, and move on without marking the card, or you read a part of the card and then jump to a diffrent part withought reading whats in between.--- I can explain before the round if yall need me to.

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

• I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
• I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
• As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Emory ‘24

Washburn Rural ‘20

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants.

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks.

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

T USFG: I'm very good for T against K Affs. Fairness is the best impact. I also like clash style impacts.

Ks: I'm also very good for Affs with plans and extinction impacts against Ks. I generally believe Affs should get to weigh the plan.

T: I don’t have extensive topic knowledge so will need more explanation. I enjoy these debates more so when they include substantive engagement, and less so when they include a contrived, unpredictable interp.

CPs: Not a huge fan of generic process CPs.

Theory: Conditionality is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Emory '25

I debated in high school at McQueen for 4 years, and I qualified to the TOC several times. I debated a little bit at Emory, but am more interested in teaching debate than competing. Don't be rude in cx.

Put me on the email chain: miarleutzinger@gmail.com

I do not have a lot of knowledge about the college personhood topic. That said, I have done a lot of debate, so feel free to do whatever you want.

In terms of argument preference, don't make me vote on theory, I am probably better for K v K or K v policy. I don't love complicated process counterplans.

T/FW - I enjoy framework and T debates. I do think fairness is an impact. I have a lower tolerance for K affs that just summarize or describe a theory without any sort of normative approach. K affs are better when they can explain/solve something larger than just “framework bad.”

Alpharetta HS, class of 2026, 1A/2N

Add me to the email chain, ldmontalvos@gmail.com

Email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---AFF Team A v. NEG Team B.

The most important stuff is in TLDR and Speaks. Everything was adapted from people at Alpharetta.

Cynthia Bai is always wrong.
TLDR

-"Tech > Truth, but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di

-Clarity>Speed, I'll say clear twice and then stop flowing.

-As a general rule, you can speed up on cards but make sure you slow down on tags, author names, and analytics, as well as letting me know when you're changing flows.

-Don't do anything rude or disrespectful (pretty self-explanatory).

-I love a good line by line. Flowing is also really important.

-A conceded argument is a true argument, but you should still explain to me why I should care.

-If it's a policy round, 2NR/2AR should have impact calculus (magnitude, risk/probability, timeframe).

-I won't value brand-new arguments made in rebuttals.

-Be controlling, yet respectful, in cross-ex.

CP

-I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good if there are less than 2/3 advocacies in a round but can be convinced otherwise. Unlimited condo is justified against new affirmatives.

-If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative.

-Solvency deficits and net benefits should be explicitly stated.

-Theory debates are fun. Condo is obviously a voter, and everything else can be a voter if thoroughly explained. I find "AFF needs to prove we made the debate impossible" arguments awfully compelling on non-condo theory so the AFF needs to establish why the NEG makes the debate uniquely unfair.

DA

-Prefer more specific DAs, but I will vote for generics as long as the link is well explained.

-I honestly believe political capital theory is fake but I understand that it's a key generic, especially on this topic. The NEG however needs to thoroughly prove uniqueness and sufficiently answer winners win and PC is fake for them to win.

-Thumpers are good.

-If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

T

-Use a caselist/discussion of what AFFs are or are not allowed under your interpretation.

-Use evidence for interpretations and make indicts when possible.

-Competing interpretations>reasonability

-Impact comparison matters

-Assume I don't know the community consensus on topicality.

K

-Tbh I hate critical theory and think it's just some little kids yelling big words that they don't understand. This does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation.

-my mind kind of numbs during long K debates so like do something to keep it relevant. Start dancing or something because if not I'll just go into a coma of "the aff perpetuates colonialism" or "the aff is inherently capitalist."

-if you read one off and K I will instantly vote you down. I have a previous traumatic experience on this so it will bring back painful memories. Please don't make the nightmares come back.

-Don't really like links about reps.

-More familiar with common Ks than high theory like Baudrillard.

-Don't assume that I know all about your thesis just because I'm vaguely familiar with one of your authors.

-Unlike counterplan theory, it's very hard to convince me that K theory (floating PIKs, perf con, vague alts, etc.) are voters but can be argued well as reasons to reject the argument.

Framework/K-AFFs

-I personally exclusively read policy AFFs and go for T-USFG against nontraditional affirmatives.

-However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate.

-Clash>Fairness

-I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your AFF is about something else. Put another way, if your AFF is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot.

-The role of the ballot is to determine a winner.

Speaks

+0.2 if you make me laugh or make a good joke about any current or former Alpharetta Debater

+0.1 if you make a good joke about anything else.

+0.1 for saying you read my paradigm or asking a question about my paradigm before the round.

Speaker points scale (Thanks Mr. Smiley)

30- This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.

29.8- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.

29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.

29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament

28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.

28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.

28.2- This person made a legitimate effort but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.

28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.

Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

Good luck and have fun!

Ethics Violations/Conduct

I will try to avoid ending the round early as much as possible. Ethics violations, such as clipping, committed by novices will probably result in lower speaks and a comment from me but no other consequences.

Evidence ethics problems should be treated like a normal theory argument. Put another way, you should explain why this evidence problem should be a reason to reject the team/argument.

Death good and similar arguments will result in an L and 25.

"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth." - Truf.

Maggie Stearns---Decatur '24

She/her

maggiedebate@gmail.com

2A/2N/1N/1A :)

Won round 2 at the GFCA Novice Practice Tournament #1 on September 12th, 2020 which in my honsest opinion is more important than the TOC and NDT combined.

I'm was raised as traditional policy debater by force but this year almost all of my neg rounds are 8 mins of cap in the 2nc or another K.

Im fine with google docs just pls pls make sure that it wont block me when i try to view it.

I will give you horrible speaks if your mean to anyone in the round or are straight up condesending and mean and horrible and ugh just make me angry. I dont put up with that.

I will vote for a K aff. I will vote for a policy aff. Ive ran both. I like both (well K>policy) but you do you.

Don't:

-Hide condo or aspec because i wont evaluate it. In fact, dont run aspec because i think its a bad arg. If i dont flow condo, you didnt run it.

-Be mean

-Yell at the other team

-Racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc, etc.

-Take stuff from open ev and run it without reading it.

-Run 10 off against a team that clearly doesn't know what their doing (don't be a jerk. If there's a clear difference between the two teams' skill levels, don't make the other team cry, just be a nice person.)

-call an ethics violation unless u actually want me to stop the round, but don't feel afraid to call something out when u see it.

-Make me do the work for you

Do:

-SEND OUT YOUR ANALYTICS!!!

-Line by line!

-Flow!!!!

-Be nice

-Be organized

-Be clear

-Be funny.

-Show your style of debate.

-Make jokes

-be nice (again)

Ks:

I'm fine with them. I run them i guess. Im fammilar with halberstam and some queer lit, but if it takes me 30 minutes after the round just to go through your ev to piece together what you were saying than I'm prob not gonna vote 4 u. Sorry. Cough. cough...Will Canaday...

Also not a fan of psycoanalysis or other really high theory Ks that are just very blugh.

Don't just complicated words just to sound smart. Unless the word is key to the lit base or explaining your args, then just use the basic version. Please. If its very necessary then explain it. I don't have the time to know all of the k lit.

T:If you run a good T-violation I would be willing to vote on it. but you have to go for it properly.

At no point could you convince me that people are going to quit because someone ran a K aff.

Fairness is literally impossible in this community bffr.

Clash and Education>

CPs: Sure. Just make sure it actually solves plz

DAs: I literally hate DAs with horrible link chains or that are just straight up stupid or dont link. A pretty good no link/there link chains are horrible arg on the aff will persuade me you just have to tell me.

Extra: If its a really (really) bad round I'm just going to choose based off of vibes. Take that as you will. You have been warned.

If you slander Max Van Kruijsen or Will Kochel then you will get way better speaks :)

Jud Turner

judsonturner@jtcounsel.com

I am a practicing attorney by trade and have been around policy/CX debate for about 6 or more years. While I have been around debate for a bit, I may not be your typical debate coach/experienced judge. While I know some of the debate jargon, do not assume that I do. Moreover, while I know it is tempting to use debate terminology and jargon to save time, you may lose me on the strength of your argument in doing so. Assume that I don't have any subject matter expertise. Tell me what is important and why, use evidence to support your position and to counter your opponent and do not play fast and lose with evidence in terms of what it actually says.

I know that many progressive debaters want to spread in CX debates and use that tactic to gain an advantage relative to dropped arguments, etc... I will not decide a debate round on the basis of a dropped argument that may have been a mentioned in rapid fire/auctioneer style spreading. CX is a great debate format that certainly places important emphasis on research and preparation; however, that does not mean that the debate round should be 75% completed based on elaborate constructive speeches only one quarter of which can be presented a speed that one can comprehend.

A large part of the value of debate in general and CX in particular surrounds competitors being able to think on their feet, determine what are the most important arguments that one's opponent is putting forth, responding to those and/or offering a better plan to solve the harms at issue. A large part of the value of debate is determining which arguments are more important than others and responding to those. A great debate round, in my view, happens with both sides respond pointedly (and in a manner and speed that I can understand) to each other and see the clash on the salient arguments through to the end, while using cross examination effectively to undermine the arguments by the other side and to position yourself for your speeches to follow.

Townsend Turner

towns.turner119@gmail.com

Consider this paradigm a constant work in progress as an example of my conviction that to get the most out of speech and debate, one must have an open mind and be eager to reevaluate their pre-established notions on a topic. That said, winning is far from the most important or beneficial thing in competitive speech and debate and I mean that as more than rhetoric.

I began competing in speech and debate in seventh grade in the homeschool Stoa debate league. For two years I competed in Policy and Original Oratory. I moved to a traditional high school during my freshman year, attending and eventually graduating from Landmark Christian School. We did not have a debate club at the time so I competed in Mock Trial for two years. In my junior year, I founded the speech and debate program at Landmark and served as the Head Captain for two years. I competed in CX, OO, and Impromptu. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in CX and OO in my junior year. I also qualified and competed at Nationals in Arizona in my senior year in OO and Imp. I also served as Lead Lawyer for my mock trial team in my senior year. I have about three tournaments' worth of judging for CX debate under my belt. Now, I am a freshman at the University of Georgia and I serve as an Assistant Coach to Landmark's club.

As far as speech and debate goes, I am a student of the enterprise. I believe above all, that debate and speech should be teaching the fundamentals of persuasion as well as the nuances. As such, I don't put as much stock in technically sound, standard arguments that everyone runs, non-unique in that sense, when the team or individual is neglecting to try to actually speak well. That basically frames my view of all speech and debate that, since it is a public speaking and persuasion activity, it should be treated as more than just a game. Too many speechies and debaters "play the game," and they forget the fundamental purpose of speech and debate. There is one primary rule and it isn't to say the same thing to me that you say to every judge because it is a popular argument or topic. Connect with me. Convince me. Make me feel your position. Connect with ME. I am a human being, just like you, and therefore I have my own unique stances on everything, including the round. Treat me like an individual and you will get much farther than if you treat me like another judge just like the others. Now, since the main area you will see me judging is policy, the rest of this will be my policy stances.

As a debater, I was a traditional debater. As a coach, that is what I remain. However, as a judge, I will roll with whatever style you want to throw at me. That said, my personal beliefs will affect how easily you can connect with me. As a debater debating in a progressive debate state, traditional debating, particularly not spreading, was hard. We took a lot of losses simply because of the way we debated and the ways it will cost you. Truly I say unto you, I have always stood by the idea that debate is meant to teach you how to think and argue and persuade logically, with evidence to support your position. I have always hated spreading because it is a tactic used in "playing the game," and it sacrifices the art of persuasion, true comprehension, and all use of logic. The art of persuasion is gone as debaters just verbally vomit evidence in the general direction of each other without truly taking the time to connect with the judge, your audience, and explain why this "evidence" supports your position. Debaters don't truly comprehend all that they hear because, despite what the opposing side says, the speed at which things are being "said" is not conducive to learning. Finally, logical arguments that illuminate a hole in the stance of the opposing team have gone out the window; no more do we see any logical arguments without a blurb of typically unrelated or poorly applied evidence from a card the debater didn't even make from a wiki. I will not make a decision solely based on small arguments that are dropped due to inability to respond in the time given if that team is speaking slower than their opponents. In other words, while I won't count against you for spreading, I will give the opposing team some leeway if they do not spread. I greatly dislike spreading to say the least. All that said, I am an alum judge. I do know the game, no matter how much I dislike the way it is played now. I will not count against you for any tactics unless I consider them unfair in some way. Similarly, as an alum judge, I can hang with any theory you throw my way; go for it. My dream is that truly skilled debaters will read this and be determined to challenge themselves to debate differently for one round, but if that doesn't happen, that is okay.

Counterplans -- This is the area that I believe provides the most potential to sculpt into winning arguments when you're neg. As far as conditionality goes, I appreciate when the aff asks the neg their stance on it, because while I won't generally vote based on "conditionality good" or "conditionality bad" arguments, if the neg comes out with a ton of counterplans to simply see which one is the dead ringer, fully planning to drop all the other ones, I will not weigh those nearly as heavily as when the neg comes out with one or two good CPs that they plan to keep the whole round as long as they have any ground at all to stand on with them. Above all, what carries virtually no weight in my book are "CPs" that simply take out a word or two in the aff's plan and call it a CP, designed simply to take up the aff's response time. This utilization of a PIC is cheap and basic. If you do not take the time to explain why this subtle change is important to the round and why it makes your CP better, the aff is free to focus on more important issues and ignore your "CP" in my view. In other words, simply saying "CP - AFF PLAN MINUS XYZ" is not enough. At some point, its taking shortcuts and that doesn't deserve to even go on my flow. Aff: Perms are great if they work. Meaning, don't just run things to run them and see if they work. Just saying "Perm - do both" is lazy debating. Even though I can and will weigh your argument even if that's what you do, it will weigh a whole lot more if you explain the basic logic. If a spectator would be lost in the round, it is not debating; it is just jargon. If it's logical to respond with perm against a CP, do it and I will very likely vote your way. Otherwise, don't waste all our time. The art of running CPs is truly a great one so run them and respond to them well and you will have my full interest and investment.

Topicality -- I will listen to any topicality argument under the sun. Obviously, it needs to make logical sense or I won't vote for it but I do think the art of topicality is under-appreciated. Further, most topicality arguments now are not fleshed out enough to be considered fully argued. Run a good topicality argument and I generally lean neg because most aff responses are consistently weak, mainly because they are used to refuting weak T presses. Above all, make sure the definitions you bring up with topicality are actually ones that actually apply to the point you want to make, otherwise, I will disregard it virtually every time.

Kritiks -- I'm not a huge fan of the way kritik debating is executed today. Most teams run the same darn kritiks every single round because they are "old faithful" kritiks that they can always twist to apply to the round. I love the concept of kritiks. But if it is just another cap k or other standard k that is a stretch to apply, I typically lean aff.

Solvency -- As a traditional debater trying to make up lost ground against progressive debaters, we attacked stock issues nonstop and solvency is huge in my book. There are so many aff plans out there that just would never work for a million reasons. As debaters, we get so caught up in the line-by-line and the clash that sometimes we forget to step back and assess how the plan functions logically. If the summation of the aff's arguments was a balloon, disproving solvency pops it no matter if you have lost every other clash in the round. Utilize that. It takes two seconds to see if attacking solvency might be fruitful. Ask yourself at the beginning of the round and it might really help you.

Case -- Please! The world needs more case debating! It is under-utilized and it has so much power! Yes, offense is important, but case is where you win rounds. What is remarkable is that most affs now, in the age where we are just pulling cards from wikis, don't realize that what their tag says is not generally what the evidence is, but they never get caught on it because no one runs case and attacks that. When the lone instance comes up that someone does attack some core evidence, they don't often defend that attack well because they do not always understand their own evidence and they virtually never have to defend against this kind of attack.

Significance -- I would be pleasantly surprised to see an actually good significance argument presented. Don't take that as a challenge to force it because it doesn't always work and based on the aff's response it might backfire on you.

Inherency -- This is my favorite thing to judge. If you can figure out some way to spin it that the aff's case is inherent, and it logically tracks, you will not only likely win but also elicit an actual, audible chuckle from me. It is the greatest "gotcha" in debate when this happens.

Okay, if you have read this far, you deserve some fun tips from me about speaker points. Honestly, if you are an engaging speaker, that is the scale that I use for speaks. That said, I love some intros. I know, it's totally old-fashioned. No one uses intros anymore. But, if you take two seconds to introduce what you are going to say in a clever way, and I don't mean road-mapping, you will get extra speaks. And if it is one of these, you will get even more boost in speaks I promise...

"The affirmative team's plan is like a penguin. Cute, cuddly, fluffy, but it's not gonna fly."

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

"America is a large friendly dog in a small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

Literally any Marvel quote. There are a ton to pick from.

Good luck!