I'm pretty tabula rasa. If you don't tell me what to put on my flow, it won't go there.

Please clash. Please weigh. Please tell me why your argument is the better argument or why I should vote for it. Give me voters or you ain't got my vote.

If you choose to run a joke case know that your link chain must be solid or else you will probably lose. I'm all for you trying though.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

Background:

I debated for 3 years in high school, mainly focusing on LD. I debated in college at the University of Utah in Parli and LD. I understand the mechanisms in which debate functions, both on policy-oriented and critical arguments.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed, slow down on tag lines, repeat advocacies twice, I will clear you twice then drop my pen. Don’t spread your opponent out of the round.

Theory:

Don’t run frivolous theory, only run it if your engagement in the round is really at jeopardy. If you present a good enough reason for me to vote on theory, I will. I default to competing interpretations as a way to evaluate. If you want to go for reasonability give me a bright line as to what is reasonable and what isn’t. I use standards as a metric for measuring abuse in the round so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them. Be very thorough in your voters.

Kritiks:

I LOVE THEM; but do them well. Don’t run identity kritiks if it’s not your identity, unless you have a unique way of engaging in the discussion that doesn’t speak for others or co-opt. Don’t commodify identity arguments for the sake of a ballot. They matter, and have the power to change rhetoric and modes of engagement. If you run unconventional criticisms, explain them to me with an elementary thesis.

In/Out of Round Conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS- don’t even bring up sexual assault/slurs/violence/gore without one to everyone in the room.

Be nice, if you’re rude or shut down/silence your opponent it will reflect on your ballot, and possibly a comment to your coach. Debate should be a space where people feel comfortable to engage and develop new ways of thinking, treat it as such.

Underview:

Traditional is good, progressive is good, run theory well, run kritiks well, and be nice. I'll drop you for being problematic!

Please include me on the email chain. steltercarter@gmail.com

Paradigm- I am basically okay with anything. Just make sure to justify it against this default paradigm and I’ll adapt (debate is a game). For example:

I expect a plan-centered debate where I am the judge of a logical game. If you want to change that, (for example, you want to run a K affirmative), just make sure you give me a reason why and I will accept it blindly. I won’t evaluate the legitimacy of the reason unless you want me to. I just want it to be signposted essentially that my paradigm must shift. Same goes for if you want me to be a policy maker, if you convince me I have a moral obligation to vote for one side or the other, etc.

In my default paradigm, debate as a logic game means that you can go for really any argument and win. Aka, there’s not an argument that I specifically would never vote on, as long as it proves the logical trueness or falseness of the topic at hand. (This includes T)

You can ask me any questions about this paradigm before the round begins. Good luck everybody

Hi friends! I’be done policy debate for 4 years and I’ve done LD for 2. Now I’m helping out with coaching PF. Im currently going to USU and majoring at social work. Overall I would just say be kind in round. I know debate is stressful but kindness goes a long way.

Policy

I’m ok with spreading but not spewing. I’ll put my pen down if I can’t understand you. I’m ok with tag team cross. However, I don’t like flex prep but if everyone else is chill then so am I. Please put me on the email chain: calebjustinwilkerson@gmail.com

I lean to truth over tech. Don’t panic though because I still will vote off of technicality. What I mean by truth over tech is that I won’t do any work for you on the flow. For example, If you read a DA without a link but the aff doesn’t call you on it. I still won’t vote for you. However, if your argument is complete then I will vote off it if you win on the flow. Overall, I just expect you guys to make while and complete arguments. Policy is more than then flow. We need substance.

not a fan of conditional arguments, but I will vote for them. Be careful tho cause if you get called out on performative contradiction or condo theory I’m probably gonna give that flow to the aff unless you do a lot of work on standards.

Not a fan of pics, but I will vote for them if you do the work

I actually really love theory. Just make sure you give me standards and voters.

I think link is more important then uniqueness

i will vote off of topicality sometimes. Topicality is a theory tho so make sure you run it like it.

I will vote of Ks but I’m not deep into the literature so explain it really well. You better have pretty good framework and roll of the ballot theory because I default to stock framework.

I don’t like the idea of AFF Ks. I will vote off it if you can win framework AS WELL AS the K flow

I love to vote off presumption ballots. So I do believe inherency is a thing. If you can win the stock debate then you are cracked. However you gotta have a stock knockout. Weigh the defense against your offense

impact calc is really good.

Weigh the Offense V.S. Defense in the round. I first look at Apriori, then framework, then alternative advocacy, then impact weight.

I will give you an extra .1 speaker points if you tell me a really good dad joke

I very much am a quality of quantity debater. I argument needs a claim, warrant, and evidence. If you can win on the line by line through comparing warrants in the cards I will be so happy.

Overall just don't leave me to do any work on the flow

LD

I am a fiend for line by line. A argument is consistent of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. All I’m saying is that there is usually a pretty logical way to make arguments so don’t make stretches. Use imperial evidence to support claims in the context of your point.

framework is important but I am not going to do the work for you. Really describe what your framework is and why I should view the world that way. You gotta convince me that is what’s moral.

make sure that your criterion is a way for me to measure you’re value. You case should then continue to meet that metric you just set up. I have been seeing way too many value and criteria debates that just aren’t logical. My favorite frameworks talk about where in society do we develop a moral RESPONSIBILITY to take action. I wanna see the moral burden. I love the value care ethics.

if your value is morality imma be really really sad

PF

I love PF debate because of the focus of evidence. I want to see comparisons of evidence. Explanation is going to go a long way for you guys. Make sure to impact out your arguments. I love impact calc so very much. On top of that I really like framework on impacts. CBA is great and all, but take it deep. Tell me In framework what impacts should be prioritized.