Debated 4 Years at Blue Valley West

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley West

I strongly believe that the affirmative has to defend hypothetical implementation of USFG action. If you choose not to, I will find it very hard to vote for you.

I look at a round through the lense of offense/defense. My knowledge on the topic is also limited so don’t expect me to know your acronyms.

K’s – I am not the best judge for them.

I generally have a pretty high threshold for what constitutes an argument when it comes to K's. For example, I think that you need to articulate a specific link based on the advantages. Also I’m not really familiar with the lit for most K’s so I am going to need clearer explanations of your arguments.

T - T I usually default to competing interps.

Theory – Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument. Condo is usually good.

CP – Should probably be textually and functionally competitive.

Affiliation: Capitol Debate, Shawnee Mission East

I currently am in my second year debating for the University of Kansas and did policy debate for all 4 years in high school. Like everyone else, I have some fav args and some that maybe you shouldn't say in front of me. If anything here is missing, I agree with everything Daryl Burch has ever done/said about debate.

Some quick things:

• Speed is fine, obv slow down for tags/theory/analytics
• I'm all in for a theory debate
• Cheap shots are A-OK (if they're funny, even better)
• Use CX, it's my favorite part of the debate
• Follow Wheaton's law
• "A little swag goes a long way" - Henry J Walter

T - I like it. Contextual definitions are very important, and evidence comparison/author credentials are v important. Shifting the interp during the block is the definition of goalposting and will make it very easy for me to vote aff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FW - I think the aff should present a proposal that is related to the topic. How related is up for grabs/debate/shenanigans. If you can get away with reading an aff that's a eulogy for a person who isn't dead, good for you! But I'll prolly vote neg if there's even a whisper of "your aff isn't topical." Education is far more important to me than fairness. 

CPs - 30 plank cps are a no-no. If it takes longer for you to read the text of the cp than for you to read a da, pls don't do this to me. I like cps that are very plan specific (who doesn't?) and have a real solvency advocate. Neg fiat is bananas 

K - I default to being Sion Bell unless otherwise told to evaluate the round some other way. I don't think everything is an impact (so read an impact). "Identity" K args are preferred over pomo, but do what you gotta do. I am up in the lit for these args:

• Afropessimism
• Afrooptimism
• Baudrillard (kinda)
• Trans theory
• Liberal feminism
• Radical feminism (don't do this)
• Critical race theory
• Queer theory
• Derrida
• Marx/cap lit

Anything else, don't assume that I understand what you mean when you string together 20 buzzwords.

DA - ya

Case - hell ya

Speaker point scale!!! (tbh I'd like to be able to use a larger proportion of the 30 points, but until the debate community sees the light of day, I'm gonna use this one):

• 1 : You didn't follow Wheaton's law to an inordinant amount/were otherwise racist/antiblack/sexist/transphobic/etc
• 27 : You're probably just getting in to debate. I'll give you lots of comments after my RFD.
• 28 : Decent, you said some smart things but you gotta ways
• 29 : Pretty damn swell
• 30 : Fanfuckingtastic

The scale will be adjusted depending on the level of competition
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realized that the above probably isn't much help for those of you who are in your first/second year of debate, so here's an addendum: Read what you can, and try to explain your arguments as best as you can. Remember that arguments consist of both a claim and a warrant, and it will be very difficult for me to vote for you if you don't explain your warrants. If you don't extend arguments through to the last rebuttals, I can't vote on them. Debate is mainly about perception, so stand straight (if you can), be confident, and don't give up no matter what. Use all your prep time, flow what the other team is saying, put offense first, and be respectful.

Debate background:
-Four years of debate at Shawnee Mission Northwest
-Current fourth year debater at the University of Kansas
-Assistant Coach at Blue Valley Southwest

Last Updated: 7/04/16

Top level stuff:

1. I believe the affirmative must read a topical plan. 
2. Tech over truth – I prefer clear technical debates. A dropped argument is a true argument. 
3. An argument must contain a claim and a warrant.
4. I tend to evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm but I am willing to assign 100% risk of a case takeout or a 0% risk of disad.
5. I would be willing to listen to arguments about why lying during disclosure is a voting issue.
6. I will not vote on a microaggression. That is a question of speaker points and not which team did the better debating.

On specific arguments:

K Affs – I have a strong bias in favor of framework-type arguments that the affirmative should have an instrumental defense of the resolution. In a world where the negative does not make this argument, this becomes irrelevant. To deploy a critical affirmative in front of me that does not defend a plan, it would be best to show concrete reasons why your affirmative is topically germane, does not reduce ground, and does not explode limits.

Topicality – Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I tend to default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. I find topical version of the aff arguments very compelling so negatives should make sure to deploy those arguments. I prefer that you have evidence for your interpretation in order to make sure it is predictable and grounded in the topic literature. Limits debates are important for both sides.

Counterplans – I tend to believe that counterplans ought to be textually and functionally competitive. I will not kick the counterplan for the negative unless explicitly instructed by the negative in the 2NR that the status quo is an option.

Theory – Usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I have an overwhelming bias in favor of conditionality and it is an extreme uphill battle to get me to vote for the argument unless it is conceded or forces egregious aff contradictions.

Theory arguments I tend to lean aff on:
-Consult
-Delay
-Word PICs
-Object Fiat

Disads – My preferred strategy as a 2N is DA + CP, but I also very much enjoy DA + Case debates. Turns case arguments are very strategic and should be deployed by the negative.

Case – I am a big fan of case debates because there is so much opportunity for clash which tends to boost speaker points. If you can minimize the risk of the aff your chances of winning will increase substantially. I am also a fan of impact turns and I enjoying listening to those debates.

Kritiks – You should err on the side of me not being familiar with your K lit so you should have clear explanations of links and the alt. Ks with specific links are great. Affs need to answer dirty K tricks. I do not find “Kritiks are cheating” arguments very compelling. Affirmatives should also have a defense of their ontology/epistemology/reps. Framing (what I should prioritize, what impacts matter, etc) is critical for both teams if they want to get ahead in this debate. 

Paperless – Prep stops when you are done prepping and are ready to save your speech to a flash drive.

Be respectful of your opponents. You can be aggressive and competitive but speaker points will suffer if you cross the line and become disrespectful.

inactive

I debated in high school 2008-2012 and competed in parliamentary debate in college 2012-2013.

The team that tells me how to vote and why to vote their way the best will normally win, it is not just about making the argument but making it convincing and not making me complete your thoughts for you. I do not normally vote on T unless it is a clear violation. I will listen to any and all arguments that a team wants to make as long as the argument is clear. Do not try to run something just because you think I will like it, run what you are comfortable with.

Speed is not normally an issue for me as long as you are clear. I do appreciate rebuttals being slowed down a little. Like I said, I like teams that verbally write the ballot for me and tell me why to vote for them, this normally requires you to slow down a little to make a convincing argument.

I do not want anyone to be rude in my rounds. There is a nice way to cross x someone and to try to interrupt them for another question without being rude. I will not vote on this, but it will affect your speaker points if you are rude to the opposing team.

If you have questions, please ask.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

lukehartman3@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was previously an assistant coach at Blue Valley North (2014-2018 and 2021-2022), a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute (2018), and an assistant coach at Peninsula (2019-2021). I am now a patent lawyer based in Austin.

General Comments:

• I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments, not the other way around.
• The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
• I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Debates judged (current topic): 0

Debates judged (career): 337

jacobhegna+debate at gmail dot com

University of Kansas 2019

I will keep my paradigm brief because I believe most paradigms are a normative description of how a judge wishes they judged debates rather than a descriptive one.

I am happy (or at least willing) to judge most kinds of debates. My favorite kinds of arguments are:

- affirmatives with large, truth-over-tech impacts with try-or-die framing

- resource disads (e.g. the oil disad)

- topicality

- technical Ks with specific topic and/or aff links

My least favorite kinds of arguments are:

- process, delay, etc counterplans (any counterplan which requires reading a definition to compete)

- theory debates on either side, unless it is used to reject one of the aforementioned arguments

- generic Ks of the government/etc

However, please do not significantly adjust your plans for the debate for me. I would much prefer to see a good debate on an argument I enjoy relatively less compared to a bad debate on an argument I love.

I have been judging policy debate for over a decade. I am a policymaker judge.

I'm looking for a well-reasoned debate, not source vomit. If I can't understand you, you will lose points. I am open to K arguments if they are well-formed and warranted.

Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas

Director of Debate at USC

In general I would prefer to judge based upon the perspective presented by the debaters in the debate. Framing issues are very important to me, and I think debaters should make it clear what they believe those issues are through tone, organization, or explicit labeling (ie "this is a framing issue for the debate" or some similar phrase). Embedded clash is fine, but I think that concept carries some limitations - there is only so far that I am willing to stretch my reading of a (negative/affirmative) argument on X page/part of the flow, that does not reference Y (affirmative/negative) argument on another page/part of the flow. Some of my more difficult decisions have revolved around this point, so to avoid any ambiguity debaters should be explicit about how they want arguments to be read within the debate, especially if they intend a particular argument to be direct refutation to a specific opponent argument.

Beyond that I will try to keep as open a mind about arguments as possible - I have enjoyed initiating and responding to a diverse set of arguments during my time as a debater, and I have had both good and bad experiences everywhere across the spectrum, so I think as a judge I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance.

As a caveat to that - I do think that the affirmative has an obligation to respond to the resolution, though I think whether that means/requires a plan, no plan, resolution as a metaphor, etc is up for debate. However, I am generally, although certainly not always, persuaded by arguments that the affirmative should have a plan.

I am also willing to believe that there is zero risk or close enough to zero risk of link/impact arguments to vote on defense, should the debate appear to resolve the issue that strongly.

Whether or not I kick a counterplan/alt for the 2nr (what some people call "judge conditionality" or "judge kick") depends on what happens in the debate. I will always favor an explicit argument made by either team on that score over some presumption on my part. I have similar feelings about presumption when there is a counterplan/alt. The reason for this is that although there may be logical reasons for kicking advocacies or evaluating presumption in a certain light, I think that debate as a pedagogical activity is best when it forces debaters to make their choices explicit, rather than forcing the judge to read into a choice that was NOT made or requiring that both teams and the judge have an unspoken agreement about what the logical terms for the debate were (this is probably more obvious and necessary in some cases, ie not being able to answer your own arguments, than I think it is in the case of advocacies).

Please be kind to your competitors and treat their arguments with respect - you don't know where they come from or what their arguments mean to them, and I think this community can only work if we value basic decency towards others as much as much as we do argumentative prowess. In that vein, jokes are good, but I'm certainly much less amused by personal attacks and derision than I am by dry humor or cheekiness.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Contact me with any questions, hate mail, or life advice: mason5855[at]gmail[dot]com

Debated 4 years in High school in the Shawnee Mission Area on the competitive local and national circuit
Currently debating @ KU
Rounds Judged on LA topic: 30+
Rounds Judged on Oceans: 10+
Rounds Judged on Surveillance: 9

TL;DR--Read a plan, don't read a plan, play music, read hundreds of cards - *how* you debate doesn't influence my decision unless implications of your method/performance are brought up in round. I rely on framing arguments to check my intervention in the debate, but intervention is probably inevitable to some degree. You can read things like Baudrillard and Heg advantages in front of me, but I won't encourage you to do so. email me if you have any questions

*Kansas Debate*

An argument = Claim + WARRANT + Impact. A lot of debates that I judge at regional tournaments involve debaters with relatively *good* understanding of techne and argumentative theory, but are really, really shallow when articulating why an argument is true or why a certain internal link chain makes sense. If you are tag-line or shaddow extending your arguments, you should expect my decision to be increasingly subjective, especially if I have no idea what your advocacy is/does (this goes for both critical and traditional policy arguments). Make framing arguments. Make permutations. Don't re-read evidence. Explain a dropped argument beyond "they dropped this so it flows Aff/Neg".

*Old Debate*

Aff:

Talk about the topic - this isn't a rule, but I think it's meaningful. It helps you contextualize your theoretical abstractions and/or policy discussions. We pick a new one every year, and there's a lot of creativity in tying your research to a prompt that won't always be available to you in educational environments.

I've been a 1A, and will give you leeway on extensions, but there has to be 2AC substance to back it up. Important things to make sure you highlight for me are framing arguments, the description/evaluation of permutations, and a clear articulation of your advocacy, interp, or whatever it is that you're defending. I'll also let the 1AR get away with embeded clash if it can be contextualized in a clearer fashion in the 2AR. 

I will vote on a plan-flaw. I hope you've appropriately capitalized the letters in your actor names. 

T:

I generally think reasonability means that your grounding in topical literature solves most of the Neg's offense, but you need to explain what reasonability is in the 1AR at minimum, preferably in the 2AC. "Be reasonable" is as vague as "vote for the team with the best argument". I default to competing interps because that's where most of the offense gets hashed out anyways. Intent to define and Author quals are a good way to frame how i evaluate each teams standards. When impacting out T, try to contextualize your argument to the Aff's interp. The Roland/People Quit type of impacts only get you so far if both teams agree that being topical is good.

T/Framework:

I think the second half of the rez is always easier to defend than the "USfg should", but I'll evaluate your interp regardless. I'm less swayed by the traditional "switch-side debate good, state good, limits/predictability, etc" impacts, but I do enjoy the nuance of deliberative democracy, stasis, and institutional competency. You will never win that ontological and epistemological inquiries are irrelevant to policy-making in front of me unless the other team drops it. You should have a defense of why your interp facilitates a better mechanism to discuss these rather than try to frame them away from the impact debate. I think it's also important to deliniate between role-playing/fiat and institutional competency or legal education if those are the types of arguments you're going for. 

Disads:

I don't have many thoughts on the substance of these debates, but i do think perception-based links give the neg some creativity in terms of impact calc. Don't expect me to be knowledgable about the uniqueness of these - i don't read politics or traditional disads anymore and haven't invested enough time in them to keep up with the lingo.

CPs:

They need to be competitive. They need to solve some part of the aff, everything else is up to the case debate. I'm open to whatever CP you want to read as well as the theory debates behind them. Like disads, i don't read traditional CPs much and won't be familiar with your tricks, so try and highlite these in the overview or whatever part of the debate you think they apply to. Object fiat is probably cheating and pedagogically unproductive.

Kritiks:

You need a clear articulation of not just what your Alt "is", but specifically what it does. you should articulate the relationship between my endorsement of your alt and your impacts. specific links aren't a rule for me, but they'll make the 1AR sand-bagging on the perm less messy and will help you control the case/impact debate. I'm more persuaded by Aff defenses of methodology/reps/epistemology/ontology rather than theoretical objections to prioritizing those. Both teams need to analyze the relationship between the link debate and the perm debate - this is where a lot of cheap-shots are won, and substantive argument is lost. Both teams need to give me a framework that either A) positions me to evaluate arguments in a given context or B) establishes what the function/role of the ballot is or should be. Absent this, my decision will be a forced arbitration that will be whatever makes sense to me. you might love or hate that depending on which flavor of koolaid you're sipping on. 

Theory:

I'm personally not experienced in either going for theory or evaluating it. that said, i won't tell you which theory interps to read/not read. you NEED to slow down when impacting out your argument - especially in your shells and especially if i don't have access to the analytic in the speech doc. I think identifying in-round strat skews helps offset the "reject the arg not the team", but i won't promise you a win for making it.

*New Debate*

Methodology

Methodology is important and I think that having a good understanding of both yours and your opponents makes for some really great debates. It's important that you highlite the difference in scholarship-production/pedegogy between the two. I also think this both complicates and redefines the attributes of the permutation. I don't think that you can necessarily "do both", especially when it comes to performing your method. I do think you can contest the mutual-exclusivity of a competing method. A lot of method debates that I've been in come down to questions of accessibility and knowledge production, so you should have a good defense of both in the context of your argument.

Performance

i think performative contradictions in more traditional K arguments give the Aff way more leeway towards perms and link evasions. I think your performance should account for how your performance is received and interpolated, as most discourse/affect theory tends to be grounded in the speaker/audience relationship and since my decision is ultimately my interpretation of your discourse/affect regardless of your style anyways. Also the more you do to explain how the permutation should be evaluated in this kind of debate, the better. 

*Technicalities* Speed

Clarity > Speed - especially in theory/analytic debates.

Prep time

Prep time ends when the flash-drive is pulled or when the doc is saved/is being emailed. I'm not harsh about this, but please don't take 5 minutes to save your speech or pretend that you're jumping when you're actually removing analytics.

Flowing

I flow whatever is said during the speech times with a grace period if the debate warrants it.  I think it's warranted to extend a little bit if something about the debate gets personal (see thoughts on micro-aggressions), but not if you're getting to the 4 perm disads that you forgot to extend in your 1NR or reading new ev, etc.

Speaks

Speaker points are still difficult for me - my largest issue is that my expectation of what a given debate looks like will change depending on where I'm judging. at regional/Kansas tournaments, i'm likely to reward debaters with 27.8-28.8 if they engage in minimal articulation of claims + warrants + impacts, whereas my expectations of debaters at national-circuit and competitive local tournaments will be much higher to get those kinds of speaks, or higher speaks respectively. The easier you make the debate for me to evaluate, the higher your speaks will be. i tend to reward things like awareness and articulation of conceded arguments, contextualization of your arguments to the round, clear speaking, and strategic choice when picking which arguments to extend. I tend to give lower speaks for inarticulate explanations of arguments, generic blocks that don't speak to the context of arguments made in the debate, rude behavior, and tooling your partner.

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy. 

I would like to be part of the email chain. Please send documents to henryjwalter@gmail.com

One partner, one speech
One team, two debaters
Speech times and prep as assigned in the tournament invitation
Speeches start when the timer begins and prep may not be used once the speech starts
Affirmatives must at least disclose the 1ac plan and advantages (assuming it has been read before) and may only say "new" if neither the plan nor advantages have been read by the team OR by anyone else on their squad. The negative must disclose at least past 2NR and 1NC offense.
DON'T CLIP

Speed – Be clearer than you are fast. 

Topicality – It is hard to persuade me that the aff should not read a topical plan.

CPs – pay attention to your text. 

Ks on the neg – The aff should get to weigh its impacts and the neg should get an alt that takes an action to solves its impacts. PIKs, floating or not, are easily disposed of by a theory argument. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are typically unpersuasive - I believe my role as the judge is to decide who won the debate and the role of the ballot is to communicate my decision.

Condo/Theory - Any non-condo theoretical argument (eg 50-state fiat, international fiat, agent CPs) is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.



Questions? Ask.

Debating History

High school: [Olathe North and Clearfield High School] 4 years, twice qualified to NSDA, and broke at multple nat circuit tournaments in both Kansas and Utah.

Debated at the intercollegiate level for a year or so. Debated NDT/CEDA, NPDA, and NFA LD. Broke, and excelled in the varsity/open dvision at 2 national tournaments and 12 season tournaments throughout the year.

Currently: Chillin in Utah, taking a gap year from competing in debate.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but I recognize that debate is a game competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of reasonability, what it does mean is that embedded clash between opposed positions (the “nexus question” of the round) is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious, if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- “Are you cool with speed?” In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb. I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team.

- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise roundvision, assertiveness, and swag.

I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour, shade, and disses have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t too terribly mean-spirited. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for hypothesis testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic. Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” I haven’t been in too many of those and if this is a claim that is established prior to the 2NR I guess I could see voting in favour of an Affirmative on presumption.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing contentions that may not function well without a good warrant. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s affirmation of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem.This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the voters as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact.

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Multiple topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a racist puts on a cardigan, eats a Werther’s Original, and uncritically watches Mad Men.

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC

Debated at the University of Kansas (3 years) | Assistant at Shawnee Mission South

TL;DR:

I'm fine with speed. K affs are a legitimate strategy, but I do find myself having a bias for framework (i.e. should things break even - which hardly happens - I would probably vote for framework). K's are fine, but links to plan action are preferable (unless your framework convinces me otherwise). I strongly dislike it when you're being a jerk and your speaker points will reflect this if you are being one.

I am an assistant coach at Blue Valley North High School and I debated for 4 years at Campus High School. I have not judged that many rounds on this topic yet so I don't know a whole lot about it.

Debate is primarily a communication activity, which means if I cannot understand you because you are not speaking clearly or are not presenting your arguments in an organized manner, I probably won't be able to write them down. The line-by-line format will give your arguments  a lot more credibility to me because it makes the debate significantly easier to follow. Also don't read into your computer, it makes it harder to understand and is annoying to me. An argument requires a claim and a warrant, just saying "extend the x piece of evidence" is not an argument.

Topicality is always a voting issue to me. Competiting interpretations makes the most sense to me. Both teams should have an offensive reason why their interpretation of the resolution is the best for debate. I think the aff should have a topical plan text, but if not they need an interpretation of the resolution that allows for their argument. The more specific the t argument is, the more likely I am to vote for it (please don't read "substantial must be 20%").

Ultimately I believe the job of the neg team is to prove the aff is a bad idea. Counterplans and DAs are my favorite kinds of debates, impact turns are fun, and Ks get the job done if you explain them well enough for me to understand what it is and how it has a specific link to the plan. Arguing against the case is necessary to win 99% of the time.

Last thing I'll put is the more in depth the debate, the better it is in my opinion. Don't read a bunch of weak arguments and go for the thing the other team answers the least, but rather develop your arguments throughout the round to make them stronger.