Ryan Corrigan (he/him/his)
Assistant Coach - Olathe North
Email Chain - ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com
Lansing '22,KU '26

POLICY DEBATE:

TL;DR:

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

• I will do what I can to follow along but I have the least experience with k-aff rounds, so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. I am becoming more comfortable as I judge more rounds, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges, especially on framework.

Intellectual Property specific:

A lot of this topic can be pretty jargony, so try to keep it understandable and accessible for everyone in the round. Great that you understand it, but if you are not able to explain it to the other team or the judge that is not ideal. It is not beneficial for education/competition if you are winning simply because the other team does not know what you are talking about.

General Thoughts:

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

impact calc >>>

judge instruction/signposting >>>

Please don’t shake my hand. I will not think any differently of you and you can show that you care in other ways that do not involve directly spreading germs.

Be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

Argument Preferences:

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their arguments and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time researching. When I debated, I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro), but do not let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a judge, I care less about the arguments you read and more about how well you execute those arguments. If you have any specific questions about my argument preferences, though, feel free to clarify before the round. I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Speed:

Speed is good, but make sure it is clear. I am not a machine at flowing, so maybe go around 80-90% of your top speed if you think you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit. Debate is a communicative activity, so spending the time to communicate your argument matters.If I did not catch the argument because you spread through your pre-written analytics, then it will probably not be on my flow or on my ballot. If you want to ensure that I catch it, then slow down a little or really signpost and draw attention to it.

If you are going to read something that is not on the doc, maybe slow down a little to give time to pick up what you are putting down. I think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. If you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc, then the arguments are probably not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it instead of winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for in-depth debates that clash with the nuance of your argument, rather than counting on a technical mistake.

CONGRESS/LD/PFD:

Compete in the style that you are comfortable with. I do think there is some value in practicing argumentation in different styles, meaning I am not the biggest fan of turning LD/PFD into policy debate. Ultimately you are the one competing, so you do you and I will do what I can to facilitate the round regardless of your argumentation style.

Congress:

• Active participation in the chamber by giving persuasive speeches AND asking thoughtful questions will help to improve your ranks.
• After the first or second speech on a given bill, there should be clash with the previous speeches to contextualize it to the round. Your pre-written speech is good, but reading it without updating it to the arguments made in previous speeches is not good.

LD:

• Clash with the value/criterion level of the debate. In-depth value debating is good because you are letting your opponent get away with a lot by not clashing enough here. Tell me why to prefer your value/criterion.
• If you are treating LD like policy debate, then make sure your opponent is comfortable with this before the round.

PFD:

• Clash with the framework level of the debate. Tell me why to prefer your framework.
• Grand crossfire can become pointless very fast, so try not to talk over the other team.
• If you are treating PFD like policy debate, then make sure your opponent is comfortable with this before the round.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother