Keenan,+Vik

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY – VIK KEENAN: NY Coalition (CUNY, NYU, Columbia, New School , Fordham, etc) __ Years __ __ Judging __ __ College __ : a decade or so __Rounds this year__: Debateresults says over 50. Dammit. PLEASE WRITE THE LETTER FOR THE BEST ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION. CX WILL CLARIFY INTENT.

PART I – KNOW YOUR JUDGE 1. Most people pref judges that they know or their coaches know. You are considering/have me as a critic because: a. your coach and I knew each other back when we debated. b. your coach suffered through my debate career as my judge. c. your coach and I know each other as fellow coaches. d. your coach will figure out who I am after the CEDA Summer meeting. e. your coach has no idea who I am, but “Coalition” looked promising. f. you actually know me. g. someone you know once drank with me at the bar. [Minus 2pts if any of the above are through a past, current, or future CEDA president]. 2. You see my name on the pairing and immediately you: a. have no idea who I am. b. are looking for the male of south-Asian ancestry with the ballot. c. are swearing under your breath. d. are looking for a white chick from the northeast. Really any white girl. Possibly blond. e. are reasonably confident you could actually pick me out of a line-up, and possibly expect to someday for the police. 3. You or your coach have confused me for: a. Kathryn Rubino. b. the other chick who debated at NYU and then coached for the Coalition. c. one of the female coaches of Army. d. last year’s Gallantine winner. e. a candidate for CEDA East Regional Rep in 2006. [Plus 1 pt for each of the above you could name or identify in their own police line-up.] 4. I am writing my philosophy as a multiple choice test because: a. I think reading 200 of these gets boring after a while. b. I want to indicate my willingness to engage in alternative styles and arguments, and the handbooks say, “show, don’t tell”. c. I was a high school teacher in Brooklyn for MANY years. d. I read the Onion a couple of weeks ago. e. I think if you don’t know a judge personally you don’t really bother to read these anyway and should ask me specific questions. PART II – THE ACTUAL USEFUL INFORMATION 5. My feelings on T usually: a. are conditional. b. require you to win it overwhelmingly on the flow/line-by-line to win a round on it. c. reward strategic, well-developed uses of T. d. default to quid pro quo on abuse and fairness issues. e. mean I never order it with milk, unless it’s proper chai. [Extra Credit Short Answer: What do each of the above possible answers indicate about my feelings on the development of arguments on this year’s topic and my inclinations towards the Middle East in general?] 6. My feelings on theory are: a. very similar to my feelings on T. b. conditioned on how abusive the counterplan really is. c. that you should go for whatever makes you happy. d. that people should learn to slow down on blippy analytics. e. that I have not expressed nearly enough how reading a block in response to a block is not sufficient to “win” without actual argument comparison. 7. My feelings on kritiks are: a. hopefully self-evident. b. a result of insular argumentation practices established by geography which is what predisposes all critics in “familiarity” to arguments. c. not so biased as to exclude other frameworks of debate. d. not so biased as to automatically think a BADLY run K should get the ballot. e. a product of early K theory and negation theory, not ADA rules or floating PIC’s debates in 1999. 8. My feelings on disads are: a. similar to some people’s feelings on kritiks. b. not hostile, just not overly familiar or infatuated with the standard versions. c. easily improved with such things as specific links and actual uniqueness. d. dependent upon your ability to spin internal links and impact calculus plausibly. e. enhanced by well-warranted cards as opposed to over-lined uniqueness throw-downs which result in the impulse to run screaming from the room. 9. My feelings on counterplans: a. are generally positive. b. will not be unduly influenced by the inclusion of Consultation, unless it’s to Turkey. c. will be affected by how badly you screw up the inevitable theory debate on it. d. are similar to my views on kritiks. e. are irrelevant if you just debate well. 10. My feelings on performance are: a. highly influenced by my BA in Dramatic Lit and MA in Ed Theater. b. best express’d in iambic pentamet’r. c. weirdly entwined with my volunteer work in alternative theater in Tribeca. d. are pretty much like my feelings on all other debate args – prove why it wins. e. that it often complements some of the argumentative approaches traditional policy debate can ignore. 11. Role-Play: a. is not a sufficient explanation of framework without inducing judge intervention. b. requires reflection as part of the simulation. c. may not be the best metaphor for “policy” debate. d. requires a safety word. e. does not necessarily mean “policymaker”, or vice versa. PART III – GETTING MY BALLOT 12. I tend to emphasize the need for a “story” to vote on. I say this because: a. like most judges, I have the temperament of a kindergartner right before nap time. b. ev tends to suck at internal links, so you have a better shot at my ballot if YOU create the logical connections instead of me. c. it tends to lead to more big picture comparison at the end of the round, which I find useful for framing the debate. d. no one has figured out the right round:regional overview balance without that instruction. e. I’m just not that bright. 13. My default judging paradigm regarding discursive practices, procedurals, kritiks, counterplans, disads, and case args is: a. in that order, respectively. b. best created by an articulated prioritization of arguments in rounds. c. irrelevant if the debaters do their jobs. d. not something you should arbitrarily leave up to me. e. only relevant if there are competing frameworks of argument evaluation. 14. The best coaching advice I’ve ever heard for having me as a judge was: a. “She’ll listen to your arg’s, but she’s easily annoyed.” b. “Tell her a story!” c. “Did we proofread the plan text?” d. “Did we fix the gendered language yet?” e. “You may want to duck.” [Plus 1 pt. for the ability to identify each SCHOOL or COACH that use the above.] 15. I think the most important thing in a debate is that: a. the debaters have fun. b. the debaters exit the round with a minimum of emotional scars and need for therapy. c. everyone leaves more educated that when they entered. d. I am not forced to make people hug. e. strategic ballot defenses are established early and often to avoid explaining oneself to Fritch/tab/tournament directors. PART IV - RANDOM THINGS THAT COME UP IN ROUNDS WITH ME 16. My history with UDL’s : a. includes being a coach for multiple schools while I was in college. b. includes coaching a fairly successful team while I was a HS teacher. c. is the only reason I continued to participate in debate my senior year of college. d. means you shouldn’t bs involvement in the movement as an arg. e. has been surprisingly relevant on the college debate circuit. 17. In general, I think debate is: a. a pedagogical activity. b. an educational activity for those with no background in Freire. c. a game with real world implications about how we learn to discuss issues and formulate decision making. d. a great teaching tool. e. sometimes very, very silly. 18. In general, debaters are: a. highly intelligent students. b. sick individuals who get off yelling “abuse” at each other late at night. c. part of a cult. d. potentially great leaders of the future. e. potential law school recruits by default, when they REALLY should do Teach for America. 19. I debated in: a. the East. b. the Northeast. c. D8. d. Kritik-land. e. I wouldn’t really call what I did “debate”. 20. I have used the following metaphor to describe a debate or debate arguments: a. “T is like meatloaf; I can take it, leave it, or go for Linda McCarthy’s Holiday Loaf.” b. “Dominatrixes and therapists are paid better to listen to people shout about ABUSE at 7PM .” c. “You’ve heard ‘two-ships-passing-in-the-night’? This was like a submarine and an F-16 passing at night though fog without radar.” d. “As Ken Strange has said: You do not have a God-given right to a God-awful argument.” e. “Have you read my judging philosophy?” PART V -SHORT ANSWER: Please select one of the following questions. 1A: Write the word “extend” 50 times on the chalk board. In 6 minutes or less describe the direction of the rebuttal strategy your partner would like for this round. Extra Credit: Identify the qualifications of your solvency advocate. 2A: In 45 seconds or less please identify why you are winning this debate overall. Extra Credit: Blocks. 1N: In 45 seconds or less explain the tenuous internal link or violation story not actually obvious in the original shell. Extra Credit: Have a round winning position that your partner actually chooses to go for. 2N: In 45 seconds or less please identify why you are winning this debate overall. Extra Credit: Pre-emption of the answers made for choice 2A above. Pencils down. Answer key: (Really, that answer wasn’t on the paper? Now you know how judges feel at the end of rounds when 2,078 itty-bitty points are supposed to magically come together as a cohesive whole to justify a ballot. As critics we can INFER a lot, but it’s a lot easier to arrive at the right answer if you spell out the conclusion in the first place.) PART V: See speaker points for score.
 * 1) 1 - #2: Uh, seriously, circle the best that applies.
 * 2) 3 - #20: The answer is “F”, all of the above.

FINAL EXTRA CREDIT: True or False – Based on the above, Vik thinks pattern recognition and critical thinking are the real educational values of “debate”. _