Kohanim,+Jordan

Coach @ [|Centennial HS] since 2005; attended Emory Coaches Institute

For me, debate is ultimately about education and ethics. The judge is educator and facilitator. I vote for the side that presents arguments the most clearly and whose case is most acutely clever. Keeping that in mind, poems, music, and other "artistic" arguments may not win my ballot. I do consider myself a games judge, so if you can run it well, you can probably win it. Speed is no issue for me in policy debate but I am philosophically opposed to it in LD. Policy debate was the first form of debate for the National Forensics League. It was later joined by LD. Policy debate is just what it sounds like--the judge as policy maker-- which means that largely evidenced-based impact scenarios are most appropriate to win votes. LD is not policy. For that reason, [|I do not judge LD debate based primarily on impacts-based arguments], and [|spreading will not help you deeply analyze the moral direction of a society].
 * __Overall Judging Philosophy__ (**for LD-mainly)

In my experience, I have seen LD debaters linking opponents' cases to Holocaust/ Hitler and then just stopping the debate, as if to say, that one final impact creates justification for my ballot. Yes, yes, I know Holocaust/ Hitler = bad. However, I have seen what could have been appropriate discourse on the breakdown of society and how man's views when left with absolute power can create devastating results, shut down by impacts-based analysis with no real connection to the traditional views on society's moral response (or lack there of). For example, who is to say that modern society with the lessons of the Holocaust would not react differently? Who is to say that such absolute power could ever truly be realized again considering the global interdependence we now face? Who is to say that all of the small reactionary steps that led Hitler to power would come to fruition? .

This is one of the reasons policy debate needs to be separated from LD. LD debaters can use these policy-debate impacts-based scenarios--all linking to Hitler; kids can throw the words Holocaust and Genocide out without even understanding the true moral/ philosophical/ societal implications. Hitler and the Holocaust have become to LD what nuke war and pandemics are to policy. Namely, if you can link it you can win--debate over--thank you drive through. I disagree with this simplification of LD.

I feel this defeats the purpose of debate--especially LD debate. If all an LD debater has to do is link to a single action/ figurehead/ ideology and (s)he wins the debate, then what really is the point? I love LD because it goes weird places and starts weird conversations (and sometimes even comes down to arguing of the word "ought"--that is just too cool). Lately, though, it seems like LD is about piling bodies up and stamping them with the words Hitler and calling it a day. It makes me sad. It does not permit appropriate communication of ideas. Bottom Line? [|Don't spread in LD.]

I love theory and topicality. However, because I appreciate it, I do not like seeing it used as a timesuck that happened to get lucky. You must explain to me why if they are not topical they should lose. Explain why their violation is creates educational problems not only in round, but for all of debate. If your violation is abusive and you can prove it, I will vote for it. Theory is the same way. Give a thorough analysis as why your framework is preferable to theirs, why their framework creates problems.
 * T and Theory**

I like a good CP debate, but please make it plausible.
 * Counterplans**

Debate about warrants. Don't just cross-cards.Contradiction is not argument. I like well warranted arguments. To win my ballot, take the time to weigh the competing types of evidence to explain why I should vote on way or the other, analytically. I am not tabula rasa (as much as I try) when it comes to evidence. I am swayed by analytic.
 * Case versus DAs**

I heart K's. I won't lie. I just do. With that in mind, there are a few requirements for both sides: N**EG:** one mistake I see with negative teams running K's is their inability to link the K in relation to the resolution. It isn't enough to just dovetail off of the 1AC. Make your K specific to the resolution then explain how/why the Aff's case (adv.) make the K implications occur. After all, if this is a policy debate, and I am a policy maker, I won't vote on some sort of Utopian concept of wording. I am more likely to vote on K if the wording of the resolution as it is interpreted by the Aff creates some real harm.
 * K's**

AFF: Don't be scared by a good K and simply call it ridiculous and move on. Explain how your case impacts outweigh. Why do their K impacts not measure up? Make my ballot for me: if I vote Neg, my ballot will force //this//, //this//, and //this// to occur which is bad because //blah//. Mark my voters by explaining how your impacts are worse, sooner, and more likely. (debate 101).

Sadly, a lot of parts that make up decorum are leaving debate. If the purpose of debate is to present a combination of education and ethics, then decorum has a place in debate. Be polite.Shake hands with your opponent. Greet your judges and thank them. They are not ATMs that spit out decisions. They are taking time to be there and participate in a very time consuming activity so that you, the student, can learn. If you argue with me after round, I deduct a half a speaker point for every 30s of argumentation. You don't have to agree with my decision, but you do have to respect my position. Chances are, you'll see me again. Have fun. Be respectful. Learn. Pretty simple.
 * Decorum**
 * Conclusion**