Krueger,+Mike

Mike Krueger --KCKCC Former Director at Middle Tennessee State University Traveling as an asst coach with KCKCC currently

Rate/Delivery: Ok, it’s been a while since I have judged college debate, though I still judge some Kansas high school debate now and again. Speed is fine, if you’re not clear I will tell you. You don’t have to number arguments, though I do appreciate it if you say “next” or something to tell me you are going from text of a card to the next card’s tag. A pet peeve is when it all blurs together. When I look at cards after the round, I like to have an idea of what I am looking for. Speaking of, make it clear on your evidence what you read. Give me a second when you move from one argument/flow to the next so I can get to that flow. Yes, I am old school. I flow on paper. I use different colored pens. I walk around between speeches.

Arguments: I don’t care what you argue; it’s your game not mine. That said, generally I believe that plan is the focus of the debate (and not the topic). I like plain old plan debates. If it’s a simple plan debate, don’t go just for inherency and/or solvency in the 2NR (duh). You better have some offense or I am going to vote affirmative 99.99% of the time (yes, I have voted on inherency but only when plan has been done, and I mean all of plan). It can be a case turn, risk of a disad, something. 2ARs can feel free to kick out of case and go for turns on disads—just find some sort of advantage to plan. I like plain old counterplan debates. Counterplans are good ways to mitigate the benefit of plan solvency and suck up the affirmative advantage, but have a net benefit. Topical counterplans (yes, I will listen to “delay” counterplans, “veto cheat-o” counterplans) are fine, but I will listen to theory debates. (Same with conditionality/dispositionality, whatever those things mean.) Win the permutation debate if you’re going for the CP in the 2NR (counterplans need to be competitive—that’s the proper test, not whether they are non-topical (though, again, I will listen to theory debates—maybe plan isn’t the focus of the debate after all)). Affirmatives can advocate the permutation or use it as a test. Again, I will listen to theory debates. I like kritik debates. I will listen to critical arguments at the policy level (i.e. reification), and I will listen to Kritik debates at the performance level (policy never really happens, best thing is to educate within the round). I don’t know if people argue those things any more, but whatever. This will give you and your coach(es) an idea. Permutations as answers to Kritik debates generally serve as a test of the link to the Kritik, or at least they used to for me. Topicality debates are fine. It always helps if you have a good abuse story; you might want to run an argument that will prove the abuse. If you go for topicality in the 2NR, mean it. Don’t mess around and spend a minute on it then go for a bunch of other things. It’s more than likely just a waste of that minute, as I probably won’t vote on it unless you make a real effort in the 2NR. That applies to any other procedurals you might have an inclination to run as well.

Rebuttals: Pick and choose in rebuttals (even the block can pick and choose, though it’s probably not a good idea for the 1AR, though hey, if you want to kick case in the 1AR and go for turns, be my guest). 1ARs should give the framework to tell the bold faced lies that 2ARs are always going to tell anyway. Offensive arguments are a good idea by the 1AR; it makes the 2NR work before setting up and going for what they want to win the round on. 2NRs go for everything at their own risk, though sometimes 2ARs don’t make them pay for it. My preference is for a global overview at the top of the 2NR and 2AR telling me why your team wins—with comparisons of arguments and evidence and what you’re going for. Give me the big picture then do the “line by line” (2NR, after kicking out of whatever you need to kick out of). Again, no idea if teams do this generally, but it would make me a happy judge. Last but certainly not least, evaluate the risks. Just because there is an infinitesimally small risk of a disad, (or advantage or turn), that doesn’t mean I am going to vote on it. Make sense? Mostly, compare, compare, compare. Don’t make me work as a judge—do the work for me. Make your best arguments during the round and in rebuttals in particular, not after I have voted and allegedly screwed you.

Etc.: Just because you call it a “voter” doesn’t make it so. “Extend” isn’t an argument. “Dropped” isn’t an argument. A better option… If a team does not respond to something, tell me what the implications are. I know that I am old, but still I don’t care if you use tag team cross-x. It’s better if teams get the right answers than a series of “uh, I don’t know,” which isn’t helpful to the team asking the questions. I do like to see cross-x used to your advantage; I pay attention to cross-x even if I don’t flow it (though I might write something down from c-x). Often I have seen people asking about what arguments were run or simply clarification as opposed to using it to set up and/or undermine the other teams arguments. I prefer c-x to have a useful place in the debate and not just an additional 12 minutes aggregate of prep time. Give me a roadmap at the top of your speech (other than 1AC), it won’t cost you prep or speech time. I prefer that everyone is on the same page as far as the flow goes.

Pretty straight forward, I guess. If you have questions, ask.