For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

I am a policy debate coach by background. I have been debating, coaching, and judging for over 30 years. I am comfortable with any arguments teams would like to present. When judging, I look to the work that debaters have done to reach a decision. In public forum, there are many ideas and norms that I see through the lens of my experience in policy debate and I'm fine with them (theory, topicality, CPS, kritiks, etc). I am most interested in voting for well-warranted, explained arguments. I also give higher speaker points to teams that build developed warrants into speeches. I am also most interested in understanding how teams view arguments clashing in the round. Explaining your thinking around this will also contribute to higher speaker points and wins.

I competed in PF for 4 years for Whitman.

Likes:

Strong warrants, common sense, narrative, weighing, analytics, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, nuanced/creative arguments, frontlining in second rebuttal, slow final focus, actual clash

Dislikes:

Squirrelly arguments, progressive args/framing/theory, speaking really quickly, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, new offense after rebuttal, rudeness/making things personal

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)