Spreading is okay, so long as I can understand you. Be respectful to your compedators and me. I do not like open cross examination. Argue against the evidence, not the individual. Logical/Common sense arguments usually win. Corrolation is not causation. 

This is my second year judging,

I don't really like topicality--I'll vote on reasonability.

DA's, CP's, K's are good.

I don't really like theory.

Speed: 6/10

Choose the best answer:

A. Brownie points will be earned by incorporating Ayn Rand into your case.

B. Incorporating Ayn Rand into your case will earn you brownie points.

C. In your case, Ayn Rand will earn you brownie points via incorporating.

D. Incorporating brownie points into your case will earn you Ayn Rand.

Former varsity debater, current mixed martial artist (kidcobramma on the gram) Email is traevonkroger@gmail.com to include me in the chain. No prep for flashing within reason. Tag team cx is acceptable. Aff should defend topic, neg should have links. Theory+Topicality has to dive deep into the standards - I usually on't buy the argument that the aff has a topic that you were unable to prepare for. If you close on it, you better close only on it. Conditionality is cool but ks shouldn't be and aren't conditional. Cps are cool and can be very strategix, but I won't vote for it if I'm not told how the perm functions. Ks are ccol and all, I've been removed from debate for 3+ years and schooling for 2 years, I'm not going to be all to familiar with the wordyness and the jargon - explain them to me in depth, please.

This is pretty much copied from Luke Cumbee's philosophy, my high school coach

Quick things

I love to learn new things
If you have any specific questions--feel free to ask
No prep for flashing
Include me in the e-mail chain/flash drive exchange
Tag team CX is acceptable, but it doesn't score you any points
In your last speech—go for arguments and never go for everything
Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments
Student safety (mental and physical) comes first

Experience

Debated policy 4 years in high school. I have a fair amount of experience in both circuit and traditional circles.

Good Debate

Every time I update this it always seems to be me finding a new way to say this: "Do what you do best--and justify what you do." Generally speaking--this means making offensive arguments, supported by multiple warrants, effectively applied to the round--no matter your argument preference.

Theory (+Topicality)

Higher threashold for theory than many--it generally requires a legitimate claim. I’ve voted on it before but it has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that.

Also: 10 second theory shells deserve 10 second responses. Even if they are conceded--I would still probably default to reject the arg. If you want me to make your theory argument enough weight to make me ignore everything else in the debate and vote for you, then give it the time it deserves.

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is probably fine--3 is debateable--4 will be a fun/unique debate but probably not fine

Disadvantages

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link
Specific links are good links
Disad turns case is important
Risk of uniqueness is a thing
Link turns need uniqueness to be offense

Counterplans

Not sure what else to say--CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are especially fun.

Kritiks + Performance + Clash of Civs + The only section you'll probably read

Although everything is up for debate... I do have a strong belief in addressing the topic. Negative is required to address the affirmative... affirmative is required to address the topic.

I'm not sure why it's my place to tell you what you should and should not argue. I've had students who preferred to argue policy arguments and I have had students who preferred to argue performance (and everything in-between). As a coach, I could not imagine not having them on my team--nor could I imagine discouraging the passion they had in their arguments. I am a strong believer in this community; therefore, I am also a believer that we should not exlude entire types of arguments, nor any debater, nor any lifestyle, etc.

What that does not resolve, however, is how I evaluate these debates. A couple of thoughts on that... Good debate trumps my preferences. Justify what you do/why you win. Smart arguments are good arguments. Clash is always a priority. Offensive arguments--well warranted--applied to the debate's nexus question.

This was intentionally vague: if you have a specific question feel free to ask.

Framework

FYI: these are stressful to judge--I generally default to offense/defense and vote for the team that did the best debating. Any shift from this framework usually requires a team who is doing the best debating anyway.

The direction I am moving is in favor of education. The last thing I want to do is have a student feel like they can't present their best strategy in front of me--I want to see you at your best. That being said--I do enjoy issue oriented debates more than Framework debates. I also have a general thought that it can be tough to do Framework debates well. I will also say that if you want to go the Framework route, you really need to develop the arguments well (simply saying the word education is not convincing)

2019-2020 season update:

I don't debate in college, so I'm becoming less familiar with super tech-y arguments and the intricacies of the resolution. Generally, I don't think you can ever provide too many warrants/explanation, especially with more complex arguments.

General--

- junior at the University of Missouri - Kansas City

-I debated for three years at Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and I qualified to NSDA Nationals in Policy and Congress

-I'm always looking to learn new things

-Don’t be a jerk in round-- I have a very low tolerance for rude behavior, especially when the other team looks uncomfortable

-I’ll call for cards/want to be on email chain

-I have experience with stock issues and k debate and respect both styles

-debate your best-- I don’t want to prevent anyone from doing what they want to do

CPs--

I didn’t run CPs in high school; I'm unfamiliar with the mechanisms, but they're great when well-explained.

T--

I think the general problem with T debates for me is that they get bogged down in standards v standards and other minutia-- if the T debate is fleshed out to where clash can determine the winner and loser, then I'm cool with it

If you’re going for T, GO FOR IT-- 5 minutes in the 2nr, the abuse should be there and nothing else in the round should matter

K--

I ran Ks on aff and neg, mostly fem and psychoanalysis, and I think K debate is interesting

One caveat, I’m not familiar with lots of Ks, meaning you’ll have to explain the story and how it interacts with the affirmative/resolution

Framework--

I feel like the approach to framework should be less “fairness/limits” in their conventional sense and more “let’s make policy in policy debate.”

I default to a “how do I make the debate space better” mindset

DA--

Sell me on the link story-- I have a tendency to think link cards are pretty bad (see evidence quality standard at the top)

Case--

Extensions of warrants are really important-- I definitely do not understand all plan mechanisms after the 1AC

Theory--

In round impacts are important, sell me on why it’s important to vote on them

Slow down and flesh out the argument

Any other things-- just ask, I will answer all questions to the best of my knowledge :)