Kloepper,+Courtney

Courtney Kloepper University of Miami 2019 3 years of debate at Shawnee Mission West High School in Kansas Speaker Positions: 1A/2N (Flexible)
 * Updated as of 2/23/16

I have judged a couple tournaments on the surveillance topic. Honestly, I hate this topic. Please don't make the debates stale or redundant.

My experience also encompasses two attendances at KU’s Jayhawk Debate Institute, including a finals appearance. My skills and philosophies have thusly been heavily influenced by the debaters and staffing of this great camp.

“I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. […] I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. […] The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences.” - Dr. Harris

__**Overview**__
Plainly stated, I am tabula rasa, but I will default policy maker unless you tell me otherwise. I want to watch you debate the round that you want to have. Just be clear, concise, and strategic.

Overall, the most important thing to remember is that the debate is a puzzle, and everything should fit together somehow. Remember the big picture, and try to paint that scene for me. I am largely fond of the line-by-line debate and when in doubt, that is never a poor method. I would rather hear your spin on a piece of evidence than see a solid card poorly developed in round. I don’t need to see your evidence, but if you really think your card is fire and the deciding vote of the round, then I’m open to viewing it. Also, I will not vote on my personal debating style, if you want me to vote on something, you need to make the argument yourself.

__**Argumentation**__

 * Case:** Don’t lose sight of the case. I am receptive of all forms of debate including Kritiks, narratives, and performance styles. Just because the round is not policy, does not automatically mean the case is invalid. I believe that any argument in debate should be able to have its impacts weighed against those of the aff, but that is on you to make that argument on the Role of the Ballot, I will not automatically vote on that for you. Also, impact turns are fun.


 * Plan:** I tend to think that the aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical policy plan, even on Kritikal affs; however, alternative texts and no plan texts are valid if I am persuaded otherwise.


 * Topicality:** Love it- when it’s done well. You are very welcome to have a non-topical aff, just be prepared to debate it. I enjoy the argument very much, but it must be ran correctly or else it has no impact.


 * CPs:** You need to have your plan text typed out/written verbatim for the other team. There should not be any discrepancies in the text, or else I will be very annoyed by it. I generally believe that CPs should be textually and functionally competitive, but that’s for you to argue. I tend to err neg on CP theory, and that most objections are reason to reject the argument and not the team. That being said, delay and consult CPs are begging for a theory response, and I’m not a huge fan of those.


 * DAs:** I like them. Make sure every part of the shell is there. Impact calc is critical to your disad success.


 * Politics/Midterms:** A large part of my neg strategy in high school was XO and Ptx, so I’m down to listen. I think there are very good arguments on both sides, but it can get stale. Just know what you’re reading or else it’s just sad.


 * Ks:** Okay, you can have your Kritik, and the opposing teams framework really shouldn’t say, “You don’t get the K”. Once again, that framework debate is on all of you, but I am all for including all styles of debate. I have read many basic Kritiks on neolib/cap/imperialism/development/Heidegger, ect., I am not as well versed in the Foucault/Baudrillard, ect., sphere, but you are welcome to read them and elaborate on your adaptation of their ideologies. I believe you should be prepared to defend the entire philosophy of your Kritik sponsor; for example, don’t get fussy when the other team responds to your techno-utopianism K with Heidegger is a Nazi, because he is. I am not a fan of severing out of specific parts of ideologies. Overviews are good on Ks, and take the time to elaborate on the solvency of the alt, ect., in overview format as the debate progresses.


 * Theory:** It’s a good time trade-off argument. Take advantage of that, but don’t be ridiculous. I tend to err that conditionality is good, but yes, some teams do and will continue to abuse multiple advocacies to an extreme extent.


 * Presumption:** Yeah, I’ll vote neg on presumption. It can also flip when the neg’s CP is lacking a solid net benefit.


 * CX:** I really do enjoy CX, so please don’t waste my time. This is 3 minutes that you get to make the other team look inferior by your wit. Don’t be a total ass though, and look at me during the time. Open CX is fine, but don’t overstep your partner; that will decrease your speaker points.


 * Paperless:** Flash before the speech. If you have a separate paper copy for the other team to view, that is also surrendered before the speech. Your prep time will end when the flash drive is removed from your computer. Yes, I will be timing myself.


 * Speed:** Clarity is always preferential to speed. I will clear you a couple times at most, and then you’ll just be screwed from there. If I didn’t hear the argument, then it doesn’t make it to my flow, and it doesn’t get voted on. That simple. But the answer is yes, I will be able to keep up. Everything rests on clarity.


 * Ethics:** Don’t clip cards. Don’t insult the other team. This can change my ballot.


 * Speaker Points:** It vexes me greatly that we have 1-30 typically available for points, but we can’t even use the majority of those without screwing over a speaker. Therefore, I will conform and my range will basically be from 25-30.

Things that will help you: 1) Strategic decisions 2) Technical proficiency 3) Bold argumentation decisions 4) Jokes (or a solid pun will guarantee at minimum a point increase)

Things that will hurt you: 1) Unethical behavior 2) Insults and disrespect 3) Dropping arguments 4) Not-funny jokes