Kenner,+Harrison

Harrison Kenner Glenbrook South 2014 Boston College 2018 hkkenner@gmail.com Last Update: Spring 2017

In the absence of clash and refutation in the late rebuttals, the RFD will include judge intervention. This is an inevitable byproduct of shallow debates with poor clash and evidence comparison. I have judged too many debates where both teams are wedded to the speech document. Focus on the flow!

New arguments: in the absence of either team pointing out an argument is new, I will apply the, "did I see it coming?" standard when looking at new arguments in the late rebuttals. Please flow and respond to the arguments that have been advanced by the other team in the late rebuttals. Do not rely on the speech document.

General: debates that focus on what pieces of evidence should be allowed in a debate round are critical to the success of the activity. The *qualifications* of evidence are the most critical component of an argument to me.

Analytic arguments: you can win zero risk of a disadvantage with one analytic argument. If it is a factual statement, explains why an internal link makes no sense or has a strong application to history or general explanations of risk or something of the like. I will reward this action with high speaker points to incentivize students to *think* instead of mindlessly reading seven cards without realizing the thesis of the argument makes no sense.

Evidence: is the foundation of debate. Evidence quality outweighs quantity. Quality evidence rewards good research practices. I tend to read evidence in the places where it matters most i.e what questions do I have to answer to decide this debate? If a team points out a piece of evidence is wrong, mis-highlighted or does not rise to the level of explanation it should, I will read it.

Most important: I’m a firm believer in switch side debate, USFG action and the defense of a topical plan.

Specifics:

Critiques- I have no bias towards them. Specificity is what makes K debates and pretty much any debate in my opinion. If that specificity is not reflected in your evidence it should be analysis in the 2nc/1nr. As long as the explanation is coherent + specific and the framework interpretation is somewhat reasonable to both sides, there is no reason to take this position out of the 1nc.

Disads- internal link matters a lot more than the impact. Turns case arguments must be well explained. Intrinsicness is a good argument. Too many people rely on try or die framing. "try or die" logic assumes nearly 100% uniqueness, no mitigating factors, and at least some solvency. It doesn't mean "vote for us no matter what because warming is real." – Ellis Allen.

Counterplans – people should go for these in high school more. Advantage counterplans are unquestionably competitive, test the intrinsicness of the affs internal links and when coupled with a non-politics DA that seems like a good position to be in. I’m not a big fan of process counterplans; they need a solvency advocate in the context of the affirmative to be a starter for me. If the aff executes a good theory argument against your process counterplan I’m unapologetically voting aff and giving lower speaks than usual.

Topicality: you need a clear, consistent and predictable interpretation. If you interpretation is arbitrary, not predictable or you link to your offense I’m voting affirmative. I’m a good judge for reasonability if you contextualize it to the debate but otherwise competing interpretations makes a lot more sense.

Theory: I honestly think 2a’s should go for conditionality more. I enjoy judging good theory debates. I am ambivalent on most issues but do lean decidedly affirmative on the issues of consult, conditionality, international fiat, delay, process, and multi actor. If the negative has a solvency advocate in the context of the affirmative then that bias flips. I think in most instances the literature should drive the topic. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Judge Kick: If conditionality is couched as a logic argument “the status quo is always an option” then I will kick the CP for the negative team, but only if the affirmative does not question this. I can be persuaded to not do this if the affirmative correctly points out that judge kick makes the 2ar a lot harder, creates multiple worlds and is unfair and takes away from clash and in depth debate.

Things that I like:

Conditionality bad

The unconditional counterplan

Politeness

History

Discussions of intrinsicness

Link turning out of the 2ac

Going for one argument in the 2ar

Critiques with links to the affirmative's internal links

Dedevelopment

Prolif good

Heg good/bad

Chris Callahan

General tip: students should look presentable in round, avoid swearing, refrain from making odd jokes in between prep time. Act as if a school administrator is watching the round!