Joseph,+Kyle


 * Kyle Joseph **


 * Background: **
 * Assistant Debate Coach, Iowa City High School
 * University of Iowa
 * A. Craig Baird Debate Forum
 * Political Science
 * Homewood Flossmoor High School
 * Class of 2011


 * Quotes:**
 * “Do not assume that I know -- or care about -- what theory arguments and tricks are "cool" or how I am "supposed to" vote on them. I am much more likely to listen to and decide based on the actual arguments in the debate round.” — Jordana Sternberg, Westminster Academy.
 * “I have tired of the generic and boring 1NC's that I hear in most high school debates. Last year before 85% of the debates I judged I could tell you what the 1NC would be: Cap K, T - Social Worker, Health Care Politics D.A., the States CP, and some random, terrible case cards. After September, these debates were no longer interesting, nor were they fun to judge. As a result, and thanks to the promise of our new topic, I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case.” —Eric Forslund, Greenhill School.
 * //Disad/case debates// "are not evaluated purely on impacts, but on the strength of internal links. Try or Die framing / 1% risk is not compelling to me if a team has won defense to your impact."
 * Counterplan:**
 * the counterplan have strategic importance that shouldn’t be underscored, however I think there is an over-reliance by negatives that use counterplans because they feel they ‘level the playing field’ when in my opinion, challenging the affirmative is better done through an undressing of the affirmative in a case debate. Of the non-traditional rounds I’ve judged and observed I’ve found these debates ripe with direct challenges which preclude any discussion of a permutation. This may be because I feel that an ontological or epistemic starting point lacks the impetus a traditional counterplan might invite, as the former can function discretely (this is also a useful insight into how I consider impacts and arguments in non-traditional debates).
 * if I were to rank my favorite counterplans in order of preference, it would start with the process counterplan, followed by the agent counterplan, the advantage counterplan, the exclusionary/plan-inclusive counterplan, followed by the consult counterplan, and lastly the delay counterplan.
 * planks are fine, but try not to speed through a long text, or at least pause through clauses.
 * Solvency advocates are preferable, though I can be convinced by affirmative evidence flowing under counterplan text.
 * Disadvantage:**
 * disadvantages are the primary form of offense, and I enjoy these arguments most of all. I prefer specific disadvantage links to the plan over generic ones, and this should start as close to the 1NC as possible.
 * I enjoy politics, but if your disadvantage ground is so plentiful that politics is deemed unnecessary, ‘babe you got a stew going’.
 * disadvantages in the middle of case flows often get messy. I really don’t care how many off case you read to be honest (or I do, but only insofar as paper consumption is concerned). FYI, the other team is probably on to you as well. Messing with a case flow that born out of an intentionally poor 1NC construction speaks of incompetence, fraud, and disorganization.
 * Topicality:**
 * I enjoy good t debates, but they tend to require more organization on the part of the debater when compared to arguments with better substance clash. In a debate where I can easily line arguments up elsewhere, I typically end up flowing the T debate straight down. When a round ends and my t flow is gridiron somebody will get a 30.
 * I like considering interpretations in competition, but some debates end up resembling larger question of reasonableness. When this happens I revert to whether or not the measure of sufficiency is enough to overcome the negative’s offense based upon a narrower definition of the topic
 * Critiques:**
 * I think critiques are interesting, though this is not my area of expertise. While I am not opposed to listening to a debate about the K, I find these debates harder to judge. One reason is that I am not well versed in high theory. I also don’t find all the eurotrash literature particularly enticing. What will remain important in these debates is a commitment to debates particularities that make these arguments digestible. I will try my best to comprehend the argument, but simpler explanations, or reduced and less jargon-heavy tags is a must.
 * the other reason these debates can be harder to evaluate is framework. In particular, when the framework argument is unattended to or left cumbersome, I’m not going to be too inclined to sit and
 * when I judge K debates I feel the affirmative typically establishes a defacto framework which the negative can challenge. Recently, debaters have provided a coherent corollary between their framework, their alternative.
 * I like K affirmatives, but prefer that they have a tie to the resolution and some sort of action statement. It is also good to give me some sort of flowing instruction (in the 1AC), because I label flows according to their functions (e.g. ‘solvency’), for the affirmative, rather than by their position (e.g. the ‘ptx disad’), on the negative.
 * I am fairly confident in my ability to evaluate permutation debates in critical rounds, finding that negative teams benefit with time investment when answering these arguments.
 * each card holds more weight, so I’m probably looking for a more detailed and nuanced explanation, and in general am open to a slower pace for the round depending on the structure of the 1NC or 2NC.
 * I tend to evaluate analytic claims more in these debates, and where they are more frequent they also tend to hold more weight. Over-reliance on evidence in late rebuttals, when thorough explanation of the data and warrant will suffice.
 * Non-Traditional:**
 * Recently, I have found myself receptive to non-traditional arguments and/or performances. While I recognize that there more ways to present arguments in support of the resolution, I do firmly believe that teams must defend their chosen practice.
 * As an important subset, I think that traditional framework arguments have become rather stale, due in large part (as I interpret it), to static defenses of traditional argumentation practices, or from attempts to shadow the linear (and straightforward) process that underlies topicality (despite the larger multiplicity of complex arguments), that are available and sometimes necessary in order to respond to a given performative articulation.
 * While the rare exceptional framework debate can be rewarding and thought provoking, I often find that framework teams are block heavy and over-scripted.
 * Negative teams that engage with affirmatives beyond framework often show a commitment a) preparation and more importantly b) clash. I happen to a big fan of clash.
 * Notes:**
 * I was a 2A in high school, but my favorite speech in the activity (assuming that I’m responsible for giving it) is the 1AR.
 * **Oceans Topic negative bias**: I tended to vote negative, a lot last year. I compiled a list of OCX decisions at National Circuit tournaments last year. For some reason I am still bothered by this as I felt that it demonstrated a lack of parity. I'm hoping that this occurrence was related to the topic (ocean exploration and/or development), so we'll see how surveillance plays out.
 * **gradually deflating point distribution**: my speaker points are rounding off in the lower end of the 28 range. I used frequently assign points much higher than this, based upon a speaker’s performance, organization and clarity. It was once that I judged debates across all levels of ability, but this tendency has appeared to even itself out. Based upon your performance in round, you are likely to fall within this range: 28-28.5. Anything too far above or below and I will provide tips and advice where I can.
 * **when I read evidence debates are closer than they appear**: because the card likely includes warrants you neglected to identify or extend. As a result of this I tend to not want to read cards in the post round.
 * I may at times, flow more of the 1AC than the other speeches, including and referring specifically to portions of the card text. It depends on how much I can hear and what the 1A emphasizes.
 * I think that **presumption** is an important safety mechanism. Explaining why certain actions have shifted presumption provides a check against various scenarios, such as the following: the plan and counterplan are functionally indistinguishable when the risk of the net benefit is intangible; how I should resolve the debate when multiple intervening factors are perceptually blurred.
 * Opinions:**
 * **cross-x isn’t for grand standing**: I’m pretty sure we get your point. That is enough, carry on.
 * **the counterplan is strategic, but not always optimal**: I have a slight preference direct offense (e.g. da+case), provided that an impact turns and affects other impacts. The measure of preference here is minimal, albeit observable, and something you might want to consider when considering whether or not I can jettison it for you.
 * **I evaluate framework debates**: although framework can be clunky, cumbersome, over-scripted and generally stale, I still evaluate the debate when rendering a decision. Teams defending the resolution should do their best to simplify their 1NC shell as much as possible. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team redefine the resolved or the United States federal government.
 * I don’t find jargon hip, therefore you are better off explaining your argument thoroughly.
 * I am less likely to evaluate theory debates in the context of spillover compared to topicality because the latter’s focus (i.e. the plan’s present justification and how that might influence a wider reading of the resolution), in my mind has a greater impact on debate quality. Put simply, I am more likely to vote on an ‘aff inclusion makes topic undesirable argument’ (in a t debate); than I am to vote on a similarly constructed argument against a counterplan competition mechanism.
 * I feel some judges pull the trigger on specific words or phrases (which might sometimes be taken out of context) I try not to do this.
 * //My clarity threshold is less strong than my rate of intervention. It is unlikely that I say anything until my confusion starts costing you ink.//
 * Defaults** (which can be changed with persuasion)**:**
 * absent clear argument explanations I default to a dice roll of the evidence and its quality.
 * the link influences uniqueness direction and significance
 * Do Not:**
 * Be obnoxious with your paperless business.
 * Talk into your laptop. I cannot and will not video chat you. You will lose points.
 * do not yell.