Blue Valley Southwest Invitational
2018 — Overland Park, KS/US
Zach Atkins Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rounds judged on 2019-20 topic: 9
- Washburn Rural
- Blue Valley Southwest
Debated at Lansing High School in KS for 4 years
Debated 1 year at KU
Senior at University of Kansas
Assistant Coach for Lansing High School
I’m a few years removed from debating now, so I'm not as fast at flowing as I used to be. You can read fast on cards, but I’d recommend you go at a moderate pace for tags/cites and theory arguments. Moreover, it would be advisable for you to explain your framing for the round a bit more than you normally would; odds are, you don’t want me trying to unravel the round for you, especially since I’m not particularly familiar with the literature on this topic.
If I feel that a team is intentionally personally attacking the other team (e.g. sexism, racism, repeatedly shouting at the other team, generally making the space feel unwelcome or unsafe for anyone else, etc.), I will drastically dock your speaker points on the first offense. If such behavior continues, I will vote you down. If you choose to continue to the point where the other team is visibly uncomfortable and/or upset, you will lose the round, get 0 speaker points, and I will find your coach. I would hope that no one reading this would act in such a fashion, but I want to be upfront about how seriously I take this issue.
If you’re going too fast or you’re unclear, I’ll say “clear”.
Don’t be too rude, I’m not afraid to dock speaker points. I get that sometimes it’s unavoidable.
Generally tech over truth.
Read what you’re good at and explain why you should win. If you do that better than the other team, you’ll win the round.
Are pretty dang terrible on this topic. Give me lots of impact calc and turns case. Since most of the DAs on this topic have the same or similar impacts as the aff, explain why I should prefer one internal link chain over the other. I don’t just only want to hear about the impacts in the 2NR - that leads to messy debates that are very difficult to adjudicate.
Read whatever CPs you want. I don’t care if they are completely cheating, if the aff doesn’t make a theory arg, I’m not gonna intervene. That being said, I have a pretty low threshold to reject the arg on “that CP is cheating”. Especially on this topic, I tend to err against process counter plans.
If you're gonna make a judge kick arg, make it in the block or in CX if the aff asks. Aff teams - ask this in CX of the 1NC.
You need to prove a link to the aff or their reps/epistemology. Explain what your alt does and give a clear framing as to how I should evaluate the K vs the aff.
Justify why you don’t have to defend the topic or a plan text. I probably err toward framework. I’m not your ideal judge if you don’t read a plan. I'm a lot more likely to vote for affs with arguments about exclusion to weigh against framework than things like Baudrillard.
I’ll vote on in round and/or potential abuse. I'm pretty persuaded by predictable limits args on this topic since it seems like there are no real limits on the topic. Give TVAs and caselists. Go slower on T - my flowing is a little rusty.
I’m probably not gonna vote on theory unless you're weighing it against T. In that case, explain how your theory args interact with the impacts of T, otherwise I'll end up having to make potentially arbitrary decisions when writing a ballot. I will reject an alt/CP/perm etc. based on theory if you're winning it and evaluate the round as such.
Ask specific questions pre-round if you want to know about specific args
Caroline Erickson Paradigm
I cannot emphasize this enough—don’t spread. I will not be able to keep track of the round if you do. Practice some judge adaption and flex those oratory muscles.
Kritiks: Your arguments must be understandable to someone unfamiliar with your literature.
K Affs: For the most part, go for it, but I would prefer they be related to the topic or the debate space in general. If you’re using the usual Kritik literature and approach, see above concerning kritiks.
Disads/Case: Pretty much all the usual fare for DAs and case arguments are fine by me, including generic links (within reason).
Evidence: It should be good, it should support your arguments, and if the other team’s ev does not support their arguments, call them out on it.
Counterplans: I'm rusty on CP theory, so make sure you make your theory arguments clear.
Theory: I value theory in the debate, and will listen closely to it. In-round abuse needs to be reasonably proven, and potential abuse will probably be hard to win in front of me, unless you can explain really, really well why this team’s actions don’t hurt your ability to debate, necessarily, but do still hurt the debate space in possible rounds that aren’t actually happening right now.
Topicality/FW: I’ll be entirely honest, I love a good T debate and, while I’m less familiar with FW, I will still listen carefully and enjoy it. These both will play a big role in my decision making process. Again, potential abuse as a voter will still be difficult to win.
Create clash. Make my job easy!
Frame in terms of offense and defense. Whichever team has the most offense by the end of the round is the team I will vote for.
I did LD a couple years in high school, but 1) I’ve been out of high school for two years now, and 2) the LD circuit in Kansas is pretty small and not the most competitive. With those things in mind, your best approach in front of me is SLOW, above all else, and more in the vein of traditional LD, if you can. LD is about deciding an ethical question, not passing a plan, and I will approach it as such.
I judge on an offense/defense paradigm, so make sure you’re articulating why your offense trumps your opponent’s and why your defense holds up against your opponent’s offense. Basic stuff, I know, but I want to make it clear.
For any theory arguements, assume I have no prior knowledge, because I don’t for LD. See the theory section under my Policy paradigm for further information.