For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

PUBLIC FORUM

I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.

Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.

My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:

1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.

2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.

3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.

The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.