Cook,+Mac

University of Kansas 2013-2017 (war powers, legalization, military presence, climate) Shawnee Mission Northwest High School 2009-2013 (poverty, military presence, space, transportation)

I have not judged or coached on the current topic (education).

Go for whatever. Be good at it. I mostly read "policy" arguments but don't think that means you have to. I would like to be on the email chain (my email is maccook95 AT gmail . com). **No Pocketbox.**
 * Top level:**

Clipping is cheating and will result in you losing the debate and receiving no speaker points. If I suspect clipping, I will ask you to mark all of the cards you read. If you are unable to, I will vote against you and end the debate. I will also begin an audio recording of the debate once I suspect clipping is occurring. If you think clipping has occurred but I haven't caught it, you can initiate a challenge, but you better have proof. If you can't prove the clipping charge, you will receive the loss. In panel settings, I am comfortable informing the other judges that clipping has occurred and providing my recording for their review. Yes, adding words that are not highlighted to your speech is clipping.

For me, it's mostly about limits. However, I'm probably more inclined to prefer a precise interpretation over a more limiting but less precise definition. Competing interpretations is how I view these debates. Contextual evidence that describes your aff using a term in the resolution isn't very persuasive to me if it's not coupled with a definition of the term that would support that contextualization.
 * Topicality:**

They are disads. Not much to say. A lot of times they are bad and can be beaten without much evidence. I'm willing to assign zero risk if applicable. The neg should be making turns case arguments early and the aff should be answering them. Ev quality > quantity.
 * Disads:**

If the counterplan could result in the entirety of the aff (process CPs, consult, etc.), then I'm skeptical that it's legitimate and competitive. PICs that are exclusionary of a mandate of the plan are almost certainly legitimate and competitive. Word PICs are dumb and I'm unlikely to conclude that they're legitimate. Conditionality is good. A counterplan text by itself is not a complete argument. Theoretical objections to a particular type of counterplan or permutation are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.
 * Counterplans:**

I tend to think about these the same as disads and counterplans. Win a link, and impact, and that the alt solves and you're in good shape. Specificity is always better in terms of links and impacts. I'm much more persuaded by kritiks when the neg can produce specific evidence or contextualize generic evidence to the action taken by the affirmative. If you're aff, don't drop simple tricks like fiat isn't real, ontology first, etc. The aff isn't going to get my ballot on "kritiks are cheating/policy only" framework arguments. I don't think floating piks are legitimate, but I'm certainly willing to vote for them/have gone for them.
 * Kritiks:**

Despite my the arguments I ran when I was debating, I'm certainly willing to vote for affirmatives that aren't "policy"/don't read plans. What I wrote earlier about topicality applies here and I judge these debates as a question of competing interpretations/models of debate unless told otherwise. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself, but it can also be an internal link to other things.
 * Framework/K affs:**

30 - You're not getting a 30. 29.5-29.9 - You are one of the best debaters at the tournament. 28.9-29.4 - You are quite good, you'll definitely clear. 28.5-28.8 - There were some good things going on in your speeches, but room for improvement. 28-28.4 - Average. 27.5-28 - You need a lot of improvement, but there were good things you did, too. 27-27.4 - Not very good, your debating needs work. 26-27 - You might be in the wrong division. <26 - You did something seriously inappropriate or didn't speak.
 * Speaker points:**