Robinson,+Quaram

Updated 11/20/14 Affiliation: University of Kansas, Cedar Ridge High School


 * Important things to read:**


 * Do what you do well and believe what you're saying.** The longer I coach the more important this becomes to me; if you believe that Marxist theory is the only way to view the world--great, if you believe that affirmatives with no plans are cheating--sure, but if your link to framework is that that personal experiences don't belong in debate and you go for "something they said personally offended me" in the 2NR, I'll be pretty persuaded by the aff saying you're full of shit.

That being said, there is ALWAYS a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
 * -Spin vs Evidence:** Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will only call for evidence if said evidence is contested either through direct attacks on the evidence or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. If I do call for evidence I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mischaracterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks.


 * -Speed vs Clarity:** I am now entering my fifth year of not debating and even though I still judge regularly, I feel that I have lost some of my sharpness. In order to compensate for this if I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-**Permutation/Link Analysis:** __this is becoming an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates.__ I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. **This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.**


 * -Things that will earn you speaker points:** being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments.
 * -Things that will lose you speaker points:** arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.


 * Topicality/Theory:** Affirmatives should try and win offense on the T flow; however this does not mean that you must have offense on the T to win, if your aff meets truly meets the neg interp there is no reason read a counter interp. I tend to lean towards a competing interpertations framework for evaluating T, but I am very quick to vote reasonably on BS T violations designed to limit out individual affirmatives. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments the in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me.

I am not a philosophy/critical theory major and admittedly I know next to nothing about Heidegger, you need to make sure to take the time and explain them; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading.
 * Kritiks:** I have no problems with K's. Most of my debate experience has been involved in the critical side of debate, if this is the __ only __ reason you are going for the K in front of me - please don't.


 * CP:** I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. **If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.**


 * DA:** I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on whats going on.


 * Performance/Other:** I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about Latin America your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments.