Walbridge,+Kevin

I debated at Olathe East High School for 3 years (2005-2008). I then competed in policy debate for two semesters at Kansas State University (Fall 2008, Fall 2009). This is my 4th year as an assistant coach at Olathe East High School

Created 8/7/2014 Rounds Judged on the Oceans Topic: 0

I generally consider myself a Tabula Rasa Judge. While every judge probably has arguments that he/she is more comfortable with, my advice to any debater that gets me as a judge is to debate arguments that you are most comfortable with. Below are my views and thoughts on debate arguments. I try to walk into every round with an open mind which means that just because I might view an argument a certain way, doesn't mean I will necessarily vote that way. I will try and evaluate each argument with an open mind and I will try and be as least predisposed as possible.

Topicality: I think topicality is always acceptable. I evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations. What I mean by that is that I generally put little stock into Reasonability. I have yet to hear a good definition of what it means to be reasonably topical. When I evaluate Topicality, I first decide which interpretation of the resolution is the best. Then I decide if the Affirmative plan is in violation of that interpretation. I generally think that if an affirmative team is found to be not topical, then they should lose the round.

Disads: I think that defensive arguments are great to help mitigate impacts to assist teams during impact calculus. For the aff team to truly win the DA (or Neg team to win an Adv), I usually think the team needs to win an offensive argument.

Impact Calc: Please do this! I want to get the decision correct. It makes it a lot tougher to do this when neither team does impact calc.

Counterplans: My view on CP's are that they are always acceptable. When a team goes for the CP I will compare the advocacy statements and decide which is better.

 Kritiks: In college, I was kind of a K Hack, but consider myself less of that now. I still appreciate a well thought out Alternative that challenges me to think. I’ve always thought K's are most effective when the argument/team is genuine. Please take time to explain the alternative, especially for arguments that utilize authors that think in more abstract ways. If I am unclear on what your advocacy does/mean, then it is going to be really hard for you to win my ballot

Critical Affs: I think there is a place in debate for critical affs. It will benefit you if at some point in the round you take time to explain what you are advocating.

Theory: Always acceptable. I am more inclined to reject the argument rather than the team. However, a really easy way to lose my ballot is to drop a voter.

Role of the Ballot: I will default to a role playing policy framework unless I am told otherwise.

Speaker Points: I don't have any specific rules for speaker points. If you come prepared and make logical arguments you will probably receive good speaks from me. If you are rude/offensive then your speaker points will for sure reflect that and it could lose you the round.

Last thing: I have a fairly decent Science/physics background. If you believe that it helps your position to explain the physics behind the affirmative plan (or negative CP), go for it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I hope this helps, if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!