Karoses,+Colton

Colton Karoses Appleton West High School ('06-'10) Assistant Coach at The Blake School ('10-Present)

Short Version: Go for whatever you feel comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate it.

That being said, I am slightly partial to T, the K, and condo bad. Very few people have ever gone wrong by reading a DA and Case. I don't like Consult/Condition CP, because there is good chance they are cheating.

Long Version:

As I go into my third year of coaching debate, I have developed a pattern of stable pattern of judging. I have a few comments on what I think debaters need to do better.

Debaters should be working to improve their ability to communicate arguments to the judge. This includes the obvious things such as reading tags and card text clearer. Some things are not so obvious, such as being clear when transitioning between flows or numbering your arguments. Debaters should also be layering their arguments in a structure, such as analytic, card, analytic, card, rather than analytic, analytic, analytic, card. Layering arguments allows me to miss fewer arguments and write down more warrants.

Debaters should be working to create more developed arguments. Quality over quantity is a reasonable philosophy and will get you higher speaks. This idea is especially important in theory debates, where I feel debaters are reading 6 word arguments off their blocks about why neg flex is good. When the 1N gets up to answer condo, rather than spending 30-45 seconds reading your block, spend 20 seconds making a few good arguments for why condo is good. Then, spend some time impacting your arguments and explain how they turn your opponents arguments. Last, throw down some basic defense against your opponents arguments. This way I get down more developed arguments on the flow, and you can blast the 1A for a lack of depth.

Debaters should focus on telling more stories and framing their impacts. I understand the 2N's and 2A's have a lot to do in their speeches, but framing the debate in terms of the arguments you are winning is helpful. First, when I say "telling more stories," I mean explain the sequencing of internal links and impacts and how your impacts relate with the opponents internal links and impacts. This is the place to make all those turns the case arguments you have been trying to fit in. This is also the place to use a bit of persuasive skill to focus in on key arguments. If you have heard and RFD where you thought the argument was in the 2AR, but the judge didn't seem to get it, most likely it is because you didn't make that important argument a focal point in the speech.

Now, I have been making a lot of requests of debaters, here are the skills I am working on. I will try to get as much on flow as possible and understand your arguments as well as possible. I still think debaters forget that judges will miss arguments for whatever reason. The best solution is to be clear as possible. I stress clarity issue, because it is very hard to decide a debate with two unclear teams. I am also working on flowing on paper again, because I think it allows to me to see the round clearer at the end of the debate. It also helps me teach novices how to flow by giving them an example. This means transitioning between flows and answering arguments in the correct order is important.

I will call for cards at the end of the round. Ideally, a debater would combine excellent evidence with excellent analysis. However, this is unfortunately not the case. I will be trying have the text of the cards factor less in my decision for the sole purpose of rewarding analysis in the speech. I think it is a problem that debaters can read cards and never explain their arguments, only to have the judge piece together the debate. It leads to bad debates and erratic decisions.

I will try to give constructive criticism after the round to both team after my decision. I understand most of you don't have a debate class five days a week. I will try to make it so you get as much out of the round as possible. This is especially important for younger debaters, who are developing their skills. I am fine and usually enjoy debaters asking questions at the end of the round.

Now, lets talk about specific arguments

Topicality I am quite fond of T debates and really actually enjoy them. You should probably debate T like a CP/DA. To be good at the T debate in front of me, you should identify a standard, ie limits and explain how your opponents interpretation destroys limits. Then, you could give a list of what affs would be topical. Next, impact the limits "DA" in terms your opponents standards. Last, frame your limits in terms of creating better debates, more education, or more fairness. Second, I think I usually side with competing interpretations debate. I think there are good arguments for reasonability, but that doesn't mean you should not extend offense on T in the 1AR. Reasonability is just the argument that I should not view T through a strict offense-defense paradigm and give the aff leeway. Reasonability does not mean the neg cannot win by proving the aff to be unreasonably non-topical.

Theory Probably shouldn't go for cheap shots (ie Severance bad), because reject the argument, not the team is a solid argument. I am well versed in old debate theory and will listen to those debate if it becomes necessary. I don't really view theory as a cheap way out, so going for theory will not hurt your speaks.

The K I am a good judge for the K. Framework debates about whether or not the K should be in debate will be won by the Neg. Whether or not the K matters (ie Reps) is another question. I really think most debaters should be able to defend their epistemology or methodology, etc. There is no reason in this age of debate that you should not have a few scientific method good cards up your sleeve. You should probably also have a few cards defending empiricism or whatever your aff needs. However, the negative needs to defend their arguments too. If you critique the affirmatives methodology, you should have an alternative methodology laid out in the alternative. I don't really think the K alternative needs to be an action, but I do think the aff should get ground to debate against it. This probably also mean if the aff asks you how to falsify your new ontology, you better give a pretty good answer.

Politics I don't really like the agenda politics DA. I think it would be great to understand how Obama gets legislation passed. The problem is politics cards are usually really bad. There is not enough evidence about what goes behind closed doors to make debating politics exceedingly educational. However, the Election DA is a different story, because it can be measured accurately with polling. Debaters can speculate and read evidence about how different issues affect different states. The Elections DA operates like many other DA's. In truth, I would greatly prefer debaters spend their time cutting case cards and debating advantages over another LOST DA.

CPs I think a lot of generic CP's with internal net-benefits are bad for debate and/or cheating. So, I really don't like voting on process CP's or Consult CP's. As most kids don't go for theory on either option, they are very strategic if winning is a goal.

Speaker Points I think debaters usually overestimate the amount of stuff actually can get on their flow when you aren't clear. This isn't a problem with some arguments like a XO CP or Spending, as the judge can kinda guess with high accuracy what you just said. However, if you are reading a new argument or specific CP, slow down a little. This only benefits you, because I will understand the argument better and make a clearer decision. I also will almost never give low point wins. This is mainly because speaker points are used to rank teams at a tournament, and if a team just beat another team, they should probably have a better ranking. If I have to vote for Time Cube, I will probably give the winning team lower speaks for going for Time Cube, and the loser equal or lower speaks for losing to it. If the winning team did something offensive, they will probably get a low point win. ,