Former debater in high school (Washburn Rural '04) and college (Emporia State '08)

Former Direct of Speech & Debate 2009-2024 (Hutchinson High, BV North, Free State)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I do not know anything about this topic - not coaching, haven't done any research - adapt accordingly

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus throughout the debate. Conducting impact calculus without talking about your opponent's impacts isn't impact calculus, in my opinion.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve the problem(s) you've isolated.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate your arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always.; If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

**Having zero topic knowledge makes T a double edged sword - I'm less likely to default to whatever the community consensus might be; but I'm also likely to be more difficult to persuade of arbitrary distinctions which would require me to have some understanding of aff and neg ground on the topic.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often. My recommendation would be for your side of the debate to avoid these pitfalls.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans. No topic knowledge probably makes permutations more compelling, but who knows.

Critical affs - I ran primarily K affs in college eons ago. I have coached teams who have read K affs. I have judged many debate rounds where K affs have been read. I think I'm pretty middle of the road and am around equally likely to vote for one or not. I am probably an easier sell on a carded or well explained Neg TVA on Framework than many other judges.