Rung,+Bailey

Hi all, my name is Bailey Rung (he/him/his). Since 2014 I've been a debate instructor, writer, and later a cirriculum coordinator at the Champion Briefs Institute. I've been an assistant debate coach for Ridge High School (NJ) since 2015, where I now spend most of my time in LD & Policy. I occasionally work with Edina High School (MN).

I currently a senior majoring in Communications Studies at Western Kentucky University, where I compete in collegiate forensics. I do NFA-LD (1v1 diet cx debate), Extemp, and Impromptu. I primarily argue normative ethics/meta-ethics, cap, t/theory, & general politics/stock policy stuff. I competed in a multitude of debate and speech events (Most often and most succesfully in Extemp & Congress) at Blaine HS (MN, '14) for 4 years.

Updated: 11.20.2017

My individual perspective is that forensics is a place for personal/social/academic growth & critical thinking, and ought to be as accessible as possible. I believe debate in particular is a place for equitable and free dialogue, with an obligation to reject/exclude any and all oppressive discourses*. I think in and out of round, we should always work to be as empathetic and inclusive as possible. Forensics is an event that has immense academic and personal value, so I appreciate those who treat it as such. That being said, don't take //yourself// too seriously; try to have some fun!
 * General:**

As a coach, I have a multitude of preferences for my students. As a judge, I try to be as //Tabula Rasa// as possible. I'll follow you anywhere on the flow, and I'll listen to just about anything you have to say*. The round should shape how you are debating/speaking, so the only thing that really matters to me is that you try to persuade me with what has/will be presented in the round. So while I have //preferences// below, don't be dissuaded by them-they're just preferences. My biggest recommendation: Warrant and justify your arguments. It's banal, but i will vote on just about anything, so as long as you can prove something true in the context of the round, that's all that matters.

I am comfortable judging any debate event, and I see a unique value in each. If I really enjoy how you handled the round, and you did the best that could be asked of you, I'll reward you with high speaker points-I've only given a handful of 30s yet, though.


 * I will immediately drop you if you read or imply Dehumanization (Fascism, Ableism, Classism, Colonialism, Racism/White Supremacy, Xenophobia, Sexism, Sexual/Gendered violence, Transpobia and/or Eugenics good). That simple. If you have to question the palpability of your argument, then strike me or run something else. Religion arguments make me pretty uncomfy.

is bae.
 * CX:**

Read whatever you wanted keeping in mind *.

I judge debates from a logical decision-making standpoint.

My default framework is offense/defense & net-benefits. I can be persuaded otherwise, but if the round is unclear, that's how I'll evaluate.

I don't presume to either side on any issue. I do presume to dropped arguments. HOWEVER, warrant and implicate the drops for me to vote. Also, if the argument is just terrible in general, even if it is a drop, it's unlikely I will vote on it.

I consider myself a technically-oriented debater and judge. HOWEVER, I am not your workhorse. You need warranted arguments and voters. Blippy extension and 2NCs with literally only cards drive me nuts. One thing I dislike above all is abstraction -- don't refer to things as objects, give the context of the argument in the debate.

COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/2AR - this is the only performance thing that I tend to be dogmatic about. Call me particular if you will.

You can spread as fast as you please (you won't outspread me, I promise), but just //be absolutely certain I can get your tags and authors.// THAT MEANS SLOW DOWN TO 3/4 SPEED ON TAGS//.// I'll yell "clear" if you're enunciation is bad, and "slow" if your tags are too fast. Don't spread out debaters who obviously can't match you. I flow tags and authors as a priority, so this is super important. **Order your arguments with letters, numbers, or 'and/next'.** Makes my flow cleaner.

Email chain please

Dedev please - I will automatically give you at least a 29.2 and/or steal judge lounge food for you

__Case__ For the AFF: I have no preference between traditional, critical, or performance affs. As a debater I mostly read trad policy affs.

Slow down on plan text

I'd prefer the aff have a solvency advocate regardless of 'type'.

For the NEG: It is highly unlikely that you can win without addressing case, at least tacitly. I reward case debate, especially offense.

Don't Double-turn yourself. Thanks!

__DA__ Case-spec DAs are encouraged and rewarded. I like DAs whose uniqueness solves case, and whose impacts/internal links turn case in addition to the usual nuke war and generic calc.

Politics are a personal favorite. As a debater this my most neg common collapse.

I buy risk-of-link and perceptual links. I like to see a variety of arguments on the DA Flow, with good analytics and extensions.

Whoever has the more recent date on uniqueness doesn't always win. Warrants matter. Make sure your Internal Link and Uniqueness are in conversation.

__CP__ Just like for the aff, I prefer that the CP has a solvency advocate.

I buy functional and textual competition. Non-unique net-bens wil earn you a frowny face.

I don't buy Perms Bad. I think perms test competition; I don't think it's an advocacy. Perm need a net-benefit.

I default to condo. I think that drop the debater is the only way to resolve the condo theory debate.

AFF should have a perm text, and I'll buy severance/intrinsic perms if you win the theory debate. Perm double bind is a great arg just saying.

__K__ Yay! Just make sure you establish a clear articulation of the position in the 1N -- waiting to put all the pieces together in the 2 is going to put you way behind.

I'm really familiar (study level) with critical theory (in the context of communications/semiotics), postmodernism/poststrucuralism, anti-colonialism, ableism and Marx - these are my go-tos competing and coaching. I'm less academically less academically familiar with afropess,, anthro, queer theory, ecology, and fem arguments but these end up being the most common K debates I watch - which is awesome, just as fun.

If you really care, my favorite authors are C.S. Pierce, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, Luxemburg, Deleuze, DeBord, Freire, Giroux, Quine, Rawls, Chomsky, Mary & Gregory Bateson, Levinas, Bookchin, Curry, Zizek and Mignolo. Read them and I'll send you some heat literature and a 29 or better.

Role of the ballot is super cool, be sure you're telling me exactly how you access it. Don't be vague. It should be prescriptively worded and justified. This tends to be fairly important for me.

I'm pretty indifferent to the post/pre-fiat binary, I think debaters should argue as the literature intends. That being said, operationalizing and contextualizing //what .//you are linking off of is really key - i'm a believer that everything in debate revolves around the link

I've only voted twice on theory as an answer to the K, take that for what you will. Framework procedurals are meh compared to policymaking good/cedes, pragmatism, structuralism - or, you know, actual engagement.

You don't have to go for the alt if you don't want to.

__Topicality__ I love T. A lot.

T is a competing interps game. Reasonability is terrible except in extreme cases. I WILL NOT gut check T for you. Literature DOES NOT check abuse.

Education and Fairness are voters. If you don't weigh, I will prefer fairness over education.

FXT and XT are violations, not standards

I have a very high threshold on RVIs. You need an actual shell as a new off if you want me to evaluate. Critical arguments as answers to T hold substantially more water with me.

The only surefire way to loose on T is to not have a carded definition on the interp/counter-interp. Running a CP/DA that clearly doesn't link to "Prove Abuse" wastes everyone's time. Work smarter.

__Theory__ I love theory, and tend to be somewhat of a theory hack as a competitor. HOWEVER, theory is not an answer to everything, and I more often than not need proven abuse to vote on it. Bizarre and blatantly frivolous theory shells will still be evaluated, but understand that you risk me deferring to reasonability arguments in these cases - Ex: ASPEC and Test Case are fine, Time Cube and Bracket Theory aren't. Use your judgement

You need to prove why Theory is a A-Priori, and why I reject the debater or argument. I default to the latter. I see Theory as a competing interps debate, and an offense/defense paradigm is how I evaluate. Most of my thoughts on T apply hear.

__Impact Calculus/Voters__ Please do. On any issue. This makes ballot decisions easier for me, everybody leaves happy. Warrant calc/voters. I don't care if it is an underview or overview.

__Collapse__ Each side needs to collapse down in the 2NR (if not the block)/2AR. You don't need to win everything, but pick certain issues and tell me why you are. I can't stand when folks go for everything. Blocks & 2NRs/2ars that go for everything are my least favorite thing in policy debate.

__Other things__
 * Flex prep is dependent on mutual consent of both teams, but I'm down.
 * Most of these things are just inroads on how to win an argument in front of me. I figured more is better than less. Ask me extra questions if you have them, but don't feel dissuaded.
 * Don't be obnoxious or rude. It's probably 9 in the morning, I have a lot of homework, and am still coaching. The last thing I need to see is students being abrasive instead of debating.
 * Questions are fine, but don't argue with me. I will always justify and engage with you in an educational manner regardless. My decision is based on your speeches. I will not change my ballot, but I may change your speaks if the discussion becomes belligerent.
 * If the round is unresolved, I will intervene. I will be as fair as I can to each side. I am not perfect, and I will let you know if I have to intervene.
 * My RFD will be oral, and the ballot will probably be empty (unless told otherwise). If you have any questions that aren't answered, ask me during the RFD, after the round, or through email. I'll give it to you if you ask me. I will always disclose.
 * Speaks mostly revolve around analysis, strategy, clarity/presentation, and demeanor holistically. If you do the best you could, and make the round/material interesting, you'll probably get high speaks. Average usually hovers around 28-29.

I actively coach and judge LD the most. Really you can just check my CX paradigm. All of the procedural and argumentative thoughts their will apply here. I'm equally familiar and versed in V/VC debate.
 * LD**

Things of particular interest for LD:

__Argumentation:__ I will not do work for you. This seems to be a problem in a number rounds I've seen, specifically 2As and 2Ns literally without a single warrant. Debaters with good warrant level analysis generally get pretty high speaks. Tell a story, cross your Ts and dot your Is. I love overviews and impact framing. Please do weighing on and under framework early on; I've seen a few messy round lately because neg waits until the 2N to weigh. Collapsing out of positions in the 2N/collapsing arguments in the 2AR is super important - I'll also reward this with high speaks, but it's probably in our mutual interest anywho.

__Performance__ Slowing to 3/4 speed on tags during constructives and dense analytics in rebuttals really helps me out - I flow tags and sources as a priority. Please number or letter out your arguments, or at the very least say next or and.

__Content:__ Theory has it's time and place - I'll vote on it. I enjoy well executed theory rounds. A lot of students have been asking me to clarify, so I'll say this - ASPEC and Severance Bad is probably legitimate, Bracket Theory and "Pre or Post Fiat, but not both" is probably not. Take it for what you will - just ask. Blipped out standards and spikes stink; go for depth not breadth. I prefer traditional shells over paragraph theory - I find it really messy. Still not an RVI person - the violation should be pretty egregious. Ks of t/theory are best. I generally am not empathetic to theory as a response to critical arguments.

I'm well-read in the continental tradition of philosophy, not at all a reader/fan of analytic methods. Presumption (burden of proof arguments) are fine. If you are the neg, you should know that the case debate is VERY important to me - I often find it difficult to resolve rounds for the neg in most part because debaters treat case as an afterthought.

Performance debate is awesome.

Skep and Divine Command are garbage. Immediate minimum speaks even if you 'win' I'm //very// serious about immediately dropping debaters who read or imply Rape, Violence, Poverty, Suicide, Racism, Sexism good.

__Miscellaneous__ I won't make you take prep to flash, but please don't try to take advantage of this.

I rarely judge it, but it's known to happen. The one thing I explicitly look for in PF is Parsimony. This means that your ideas and arguments can be complex, and I will probably understand them. It also means that said ideas and arguments are condensed and delivered in the most simple and understandable way possible.
 * PF**

REALLY IMPORTANT: I am becoming HIGHLY concerned by PF evidence in the sense that cards aren't being used, instead they are being substituted by quotes. We are now entering an era of evidence without warrants or methodology, and it's ruining debate. You can't just say "Wilson 2009 says 79% increase...". If there is no warrant, then it is bad evidence. 25 qoutes in an AC is nothing compared to 6-9 good cards. I won't drop you if you take the mainstream route, but it's going to be difficult for me to assign high speaks, let alone evaluate evidence.

__Framework__ The framework is a time for you to tell me how you are going to define terms, and how you are going to weigh the round. I don't really care how you do it, but make sure it is real world. PF is supposed to be a lay debate, and it is a fact based event that is meant for truth-testing. I do not buy the framework that says you have no other duty than to disprove the other side. This destroys ground in the debate and is unlikely to convince me.

__Weighing__ Be sure that you are weighing. This is stupid and obvious, but many teams just extend through evidence or dispute facts into final focus. That begs me to intervene in the round. Take whatever is on the flow, and analyze and present it to me in a way that proves your framework true. Especially if you don't disprove your opponents framework, be sure to weigh under it, and vice versa-weigh their argument under your framework. Tell me how to sign the ballot. I generally vote on an offense/defense paradigm. If I have to intervene at all in rendering a ballot decision, I will not give speaks above 28.

__Decorum__ This is PF. I don't want to hear you spread, I don't need you to act domineering, and I certainly don't need you to be rude. I want to see you persuade me, and I want to see good analysis. I will not give you the win if you're really great speakers, but your argumentation isn't good.

__Evidence__ Because this is a fact-based event, it would be wise not to use anectodal evidence in case or in rebuttals. You can't disprove or prove something with one instance. I also have a preference for cases that use in depth cutting of articles, as opposed to a bunch of quotes thrown together. I do expect that your evidence upholds the burden of proving your framework true. I can't mandate it, but I would highly encourage you to be open with the other team about your evidence.

My day one event <3. I competed on the national circuit in high school, and saw outrounds at Minneapple, Dowling, Blake, Harvard, ToC, and Nationals.
 * Congressional Debate**

My individual view is that this event is an even mix of debate and speech. My ranks always are based on who I believe is the best exemplification of both. I believe that good evidence, argumentation and clash are as necessary as polished speaking, politicking, and rhetorical craft. One will not outbalance the other. I simply cannot give you a 1,2, or 3, if you aren't clear at all, or you have no warrants or refutation. What will get you high ranks is to make be believe you are what a congressperson ought to be.

I will pick up POs, so don't worry. To get a good rank, you need to be as efficient as possible. This means allowing the chamber to run smoothly by only stepping in when necessary. I POed a lot. I will pick you up if you do a good job, but don't try to pull any fast tricks. I know if you are dropping people or mishandling parli.

Don't be rude. That's the one surefire way for me to drop you. Excluding others is just as bad.

MOST IMPORTANT: My ranks are determined holistically. This means speeches (Delivery and Content), Questioning, Demeanor/Behaviour, Strategy/Activity/Politicking, and POing if you choose.

Please wait for me to actually nod before speaking.

Also kudos to you if you're reading this as a congressional debater!

PS: Read more critical arguments

Here is a list of people who I've worked with in some capacity during my time in forensics who have made an impact on the way I competed in/see rounds. Some of their paradigms I agree with, and others I do not. Regardless, I think it's useful for debaters who put time in to understanding their judges to know how they came to judge that way. In completing this, I couln't help but feeling it seems like its an odd and lengthy conclusion, but I still find it valuable for the above reasons and if not to recognize some truly amazing people in this activity who have affected myself and countless others.

People who have been my teammates: Andy Ruff (OG Partner) Matt Derrick Devon Pendergast Hayley Pierce-Ramsdell Lauren Hince Christian Vasquez Courtney Bye Dillon Lewchuck Shilvi Joshi https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Gartner%2CGriffin https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Prochazka%2C+Tyler (College Mentor) https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Evans%2C+Carolyn https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Rivera%2C+Alex Lily Nellans Mark Allseits Damon Brown People who have coached/worked with me: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Eichele%2C+Ross (OG coach, mentor, and friend) https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Bryan%2C+Amanda https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Strong%2C+Harry Alex Kuch Adam Jacobi Emily Pecacek Gordy 'Spike' Rutman https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Orlowski%2C+Susan https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Orlowski%2C+Spencer https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Parke%2C+Logan Jessica Furgerson & Chad Meadows (College debate directors and debate idols) Seth Peckham Chris Joffrion People I've worked with: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/DeBellis%2C+Ruby (Intro to CX) https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Yastremski%2C+David https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Monagle%2C+Andrew https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kaczmarek%2C+Sheryl https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Shatzkin%2C+Daniel https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hertzig%2C+Chetan https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Ave%2C+Jack https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Cancro%2C+Peter https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Page%2C+Martin https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Huston%2C+David https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Greenfield%2C+Tim https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Charrier%2C+Andy https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Klucas%2C+Kyle Michael Norton Nicole Castillo Kaitlyn O'Gara Alex Sencer Charles Fisher Arron Schurevich Students of mine/Students I've worked with: New Trier LK https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kollar%2C+Louie DuPont Manual KS https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Soren%2C+Kayla https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pai%2C+Neha Ridge SK https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Krishnan%2C+Shankar Ridge VK https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kalghatgi%2C+Vikram Ridge TT https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Tang%2C+Timothy Most CBI Congress folk