Kimball,+Danise

I did four years of policy debate in high school and a year in college—all of this was a long long time ago. I can generally handle speed but if you blaze, you might lose me. Slow down for tags, plan texts, k-alts, etc. Assume that if I call clear, I’m having problems. If I put down my pen, you’ve lost me. Having said that, some of the best rounds I’ve seen have been with debaters who flat out did not spread. Your decision. I am well versed in critical theory and philosophy but I like it when debaters explain their argument to me as if I were in middle school.

I am not separating my judging philosophies in LD and Policy because I don’t go in with a strong notion that they should play by different rules. I’ve seen a lot of crummy value debate in LD. If you’re going to bother, you should understand the philosophical underpinnings of your value and have a value criterion that actually works with it. Understand where the clash is with your opponent. I see a lot of situations where either side could easily do case turns on the value.

I am fine with theory and role of the ballot. Go meta on me. I think debating debate is part of the game. Having said that, make sure you have interp. You can rescue some mistakes with good framework arguments with me.

I will vote T with good interp and clear explanation of how it defines aff and neg ground. Abuse helps me pick up neg. Try not to mindlessly read the same T shell that I read 20 years ago.

I will vote Neg on a straight DA. I start at 0% risk on disads and EVEN DROPPED CLAIMS stay there unless you give me warrants. In general, I only read cards when there's been debate on the evidence.

I like CPs and am open to CP theory arguments. I am generally not inclined to vote condo bad unless you’ve done a lot of work on the interp, or show clear abuse. If you are going for your CP, weigh net benefits and address any solvency deficit. I like agent PICs but am far less enthused about word PICs. I have a modest bias against consult and process CPs. I will still vote on these but your opponent may have an easier time with me if only because the evidence on these is usually vague and bad. I see perms as a test of competition and urge aff to explain why they aren’t mutually exclusive rather than just invoking “Perm the CP”.

I love k-debate. However, I have deep ties to a lot of the theoretical literature so get a bit squeamish when I see odd discursive mash-ups.. It helps to flesh out an interp, not just read pre-fab blocks. If Aff perms a word k (or similar), neg should point out all the cards that get dropped from their flow.

I view speaker points as an opportunity to reward more than punish. Make an original argument, demonstrate word economy, employ good strategy or just plain have strong round mechanics and you’ll be rewarded. I don’t award speaks on your clothes, eye contact, whether you sit or stand or shake my hand after the round (in fact, could we not do that?) Do not try to humiliate your opponent. This goes double if you are a strong debater and are lucky enough to find yourself in a mismatched round. I also lower points for racist, sexist and other exclusionary behavior that I feel hurts debate.