Hutcherson,+Kenton

Kenton Hutcherson Last Revised: September 4, 2015

I debated for Grapevine High School, and later for the University of Texas. I currently coach for Grapevine.

I think debaters generally make way too many leaps of logic, and when they do, the other team doesn't call them out on it. 1ACs often claim way too much, and 1NCs rarely run analytical case arguments. Don't just read a ton of cards on case in the 1NC and later speeches--talk about what the cards say. The best arguments tend to be the ones that you make on the fly after you have listened to what the other side's cards say.

I like clash. I love a good case and disad debate. And while I like many kritiks (I did debate for UT), I find many kritik debates lack real engagement. Please tell me why the kritik matters, explain framework to me like I am a 6 year-old, and address how the affirmative links or does not link to the kritik. Please also talk about how the kritik interacts with the Aff's advantages. Both teams should explain to me how I can logically compare their impacts to the other team's.

To get me to vote for your kritik, you need to go beyond a vote for presumption. If your argument is that the plan perpetuates underlying problems, I see that as a solvency deficit, not a turn. Thus, I am likely to vote for the plan if I think there is some chance it will do some good, even if it perpetuates problems in the SQ. You need to show me how the plan makes things worse. Of course, if you argue for a different framework to evaluate the plan, like deontology or ontology (and you win that debate), then I will look at that before the solvency of the plan.

Kritik Affs are fine, but I think you enter dangerous territory when you run a non-topical advocacy. The resolution is important to me. I like T more than most judges, so if you run an Aff that doesn't call for USFG action, and the Neg points that out in the form of a T argument, then you will probably lose.

For the 1NC, please identify your off-case positions. When you read a new disad, counterplan, kritik, or whatever, please say the name of the position before you go into it. For example, "Next, Politics. A. Uniqueness ...".

I like theory debates, as long as there is actual argumentation as opposed to reading meaningless blocks. I debated when theory was more conservative--conditionality was generally considered taboo. I understand how and why theory has evolved to where it stands today, with things like condo and PICs being much more in the norm. The point is--don't take anything on theory for granted. If you lose a condo debate, I will vote you down.

Line by line argumentation is important, really important. Your line by line needs to be perfect. If you stand up in the 2NC or 1NR and say "On the link debate...," "On the impact debate...," as opposed to answering the specific arguments made in the 2AC, then you will probably drop something. Dumb arguments beat debaters who don't go line by line. One thing that may help in front of me is to keep overviews short. If you can put the argument in the line by line, then do. I can't stand overviews with 10 points and then the debater neglects to answer specific arguments in the line by line. That drives me bananas.

For the 2NR and 2AR, please evaluate the positions in the debate and tell me why you win. I can't emphasize that enough. If you are losing most of the debate, and you tell me why the one argument you are winning matters more than anything else in the round, and the other side doesn't tell me why they win, then there is a good chance I will vote for you.

I can tell you that I have voted on topicality a lot on previous topics. That's an observation, not a predisposition. My biggest pet peeve in debate is the argument that topicality is a reverse voting issue. That is such a stupid argument, I don't know why anyone would put their name to it. I don't like stupid arguments. You will lose speaker points if you make that argument, I will think you are an idiot, and I will also know that you did not read my judging philosophy.

Also, be nice. No snide comments. When you act like a jerk in a debate, it really hurts your credibility, and it makes me want to find any reason to vote for the other side.

On speaker points - I try to assign speaker points based on the caliber of the tournament. That means it is much easier to get a 29 from me at a local tournament instead of a national tournament (one that offers a TOC bid). I try to keep my assigned speaks at an average of 28.

As far as logistics go, prep time stops once you pull the flash drive out of your computer to give to the other team. I will keep time myself, and unless you ask me to call out time (which I am happy to do), I will assume you are fine keeping track of your own time.

Also, my baseline rule is that in cx, the person asking the question controls the cx. So if the questioner says, "Thanks, that's enough," do not ramble on. Open cx is fine.

To sum up, here are key things you should know about me:

1. Dumb arguments beat debaters who don't go line-by-line. 2. I vote on T a lot. 3. Don't take theory arguments for granted--I will pull the trigger on theory more than most judges.

If you have any specific questions, I am happy to answer them before the round.