Coltin,+Kaitlin

I competed in LD for Brophy College Prep (AZ) for four years on both the local and national circuit and graduated in 2015.

I will view the round in terms of an offense/defense paradigm unless persuaded to do otherwise. Obviously, you need offense to win, but I think good defense can do a lot to mitigate mediocre or shoddy offense. Speed is fine as long as you’re not using it to exclude your opponent. Plans, disads, counterplans, kritiks, theory and other so-called “progressive” strategies are all fine. I am open to almost any type of argument (although not all arguments are created equal). Please just provide some type of weighing mechanism. I won’t automatically vote on something that’s dropped if you can’t explain why it matters. I will try my best to be objective and not intervene, but I admit I am not a debate judging robot, and like all judges, I have opinions and biases (see “things I will be hesitant to vote on” and “things I will not vote on.” below). Debate is a game, but it also has great educational value, and I really dislike when debaters try to obfuscate the round/trick their opponents/avoid actual clash because I feel that this undermines the potential for interesting, intelligent discussion. I like it when debaters are courteous, logical and reasonable.
 * Abridged version**

Here’s some more on my specific preferences/biases.


 * Framework**: I like smart, well-warranted framework debate, and will probably give you higher speaks if you respond to the nuances of your opponent’s framework rather than relying on generic blocks or backfiles. This doesn’t mean you have to read a complicated or obscure framework, but you should be able to defend and explain whatever framework you’re reading. I’m fine with the LARP but it makes me sad when debaters don’t know how to weigh under other standards, and I will be happy if you can weigh effectively without relying on consequentialist reasoning.


 * Extensions:** Extensions should have a claim, warrant and impact. Please signpost clearly and don’t just tell me an author name. I will give the 1AR some credence, but my threshold for what counts as a full extension is probably higher than average.


 * Theory/T:** Both are fine, for strategy and for checking abuse. I’ll be sympathetic to reasonable responses against blatantly frivolous theory. I’d prefer theory be in shell form, but paragraph theory is okay too as long as it’s clear. I default to reasonability and drop the argument, but can pretty easily be persuaded otherwise.


 * Presumption**: I will vote on any offense I can or anything remotely resembling offense. If the round is actually irresolvable I will flip a coin. If I hear the “7% neg side bias at the TOC” statistic, I will presume that unless the tournament I’m judging is literally the TOC, it doesn’t matter.


 * Prep time:** Flex prep is fine for clarification. I won’t count flashing/emailing as part of prep but please, please, PLEASE be quick about it and don’t steal prep.


 * Presentation:** I’m kind of old school. I don’t love it when debaters spend the whole round mumbling into their laptops. FDR stood when he spoke you should too, at least in CX (unless there are extenuating circumstances). This doesn’t mean I want you to act like you’re giving an oratory. I’m fine with speed but still project, be clear, and at least make occasional eye contact because debate is still about convincing actual people to vote for you. I won’t vote on presentation but it may affect your speaks, or at least my subconscious impression of you. I also think it’s cool when debaters use real paper, or better yet, index cards and recipe boxes (sorry, trees).


 * Things I will be hesitant to vote on:** I think one of the best aspects of LD and one that makes it unique is that it’s a values debate. This means I am generally not very persuaded by arguments that have little or no relation to ethics, namely **ought implies logical consequence** and **semantics** (except in the context of theory and T). You will also probably have to do more work than usual to convince me to vote on arguments that preclude/limit the ability to have a meaningful discussion about ethics, including but not limited to **determinism**, **relativism**, **skep**, and **emotivism** (I will be especially hesitant to vote on the latter two). It’s not that I categorically won’t vote for them, but **//I will most likely view these arguments as defense//** unless you spend some time convincing me to do otherwise. That said, if you are comfortable making these arguments and feel that they are your best strategy, please go ahead.


 * Things I will not vote on:** NFL/NSDA rules, AFC (neg must concede to aff framework), arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, claustrophobic, arachnophobic, and/or objectively repugnant (e.g. impact turns to genocide, “Nickelback good”), opening quotes


 * Things that will hurt your speaks (and make me sad, and possibly make me look for ways to drop you)**
 * Using speed to exclude your opponent
 * Being rude in CX (or at any point)
 * Calling your opponent’s arguments “stupid,” “dumb,” “terrible” etc.
 * Using a lot of complicated jargon that your opponent clearly doesn’t understand and refusing to clarify your arguments to them
 * Saying things that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
 * Using tricks to beat an inexperienced debater (In general, I’m not a big fan of tricks and will be unlikely to vote for them. I don’t think spreading through a ton of blippy spikes, extending the one your opponent drops and blowing it up to win the round makes you a good debater. If you want to do tricks, become a Harlem Globetrotter.)
 * Wasting everyone’s time while you preflow
 * Arguing with me after the round
 * Shaking my hand


 * Other random things I like that may help your speaks**
 * Coming up with clever responses to surprising or confusing positions on your feet
 * An overview at the start of the 2NR/2AR that clearly tells me how to evaluate the round
 * Strong evidence comparison and weighing
 * Effective, well-timed uses of humor, puns, and/or references to Kantye West and/or Kim Kierkegaardashian
 * Explaining complex philosophy in a way anyone could understand
 * Running Kant properly
 * Asking strategic questions in CX

Good luck, have fun. Please ask before the round if you have any more specific questions. Also, please don’t shake my hand.