Thompson,+Kelly

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural

I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State ('08 graduate)

I have been a head coach in high school for 8 years.

*I've judged a lot of debates on the high school topic this season and these are the things I've noticed: -People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. -People should deploy extensive impact calculus regardless of the arguments furthered in the last rebuttals. It is incredibly difficult to evaluate education v. fairness absent work done by the debaters, and I'm not comfortable intervening in doing so. I've found myself leaning negative in debates where this fails to happen because the aff has failed to articulate an impact to voting aff (presumption). -People believe that flowing speeches during "flash time" is not cheating. I disagree. It is prepping, and should be done during prep time. -My speaker point scale has tended to be: 29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournamnet 28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more 28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament. 27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are. 27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation. Standard things: Flash Time: please don't abuse flash time. I understand the need for it and am sympathetic (to a degree) of tech issues and slow computers - but typing during flash time or otherwise prepping is cheating, and your speaker points will reflect that.

An argument requires a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Saying "extend my link" is not an argument and likely will not warrant evaluation from me.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives. It's important that impact (voters) debates have claims and warrants - but the more important part of a T debate is the standards. I do not think that in round abuse is necessary to win a T debate. I'm equally likely to vote on a critique of topicality as I am a T argument against a blatantly topical affirmative.

Critiques- The two biggest issues for the negative are assuming I know your K and assuming I understand your alt. The 2NC (or 1NR) should be primarily focused on explaining how the alternative functions and either how it solves the aff or how your framework disengages the aff impacts. K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. The two biggest issues for the affirmative are assuming the neg only has one link argument and can't possibly read more in the block (eg - you link...probably) and assuming the 2AC can be defensive. A 2AC on a K should include offense, and a permutation is rarely offensive.

Counterplans - PICs are good, word PICs tend to not be compelling. Doesn't mean I won't vote for them - I just don't like them and find "pic's bad" to make sense in a world of word pic's...probably. Other counterplans should be aff specific - I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence (XO, States, Consult) are lame and while I'll vote where you win, I'm unlikely to reward your speaker points for reading the blocks you've been reading for years. I've often found myself believing that process CPs are plan plus.

Critical affs- I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often in my debate career. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

New in the 2 is silly - I think depth is better than breadth. Do what you do but I'm likely to be compelled by the 1AR that says "education good, depth is better than breadth - new in the 2 hurts education."

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">You should expect me to be fine with just about any other arguments - I think some arguments are good strategy that others find to be dumb. Backfile checks are fun! You should consider a 1NC that allows multiple different 2NR options. You should consider being tricky with the way you run your aff and/or your neg strat. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> *I have judged a lot of rounds on this year's HS topic both in Kansas and on the National Circuit (KCKCC, Iowa Caucus, Colleyville, Heritage Hall). They don't show up on Tabroom because I had to change the account email address. You can view my round history on my other account (kthompson02@bluevalleyk12.org) if you need to.