Lande,+Corey

Name- Corey Lande School Affiliation- KCKCC Judging paradigm- Overtly Tabula Rasa I dont think that it is my place to enforce my personal argument biases on debaters I judge (and believe me I do have biases). Do what makes you comfortable and what you are good at and dont let my biases scare your from doing those things as I understand this is High School debate and its a little more traditional. Debating for 6 years debated at Missouri State and now debating for KCKCC.

Philosophy-

Overall I stick to my flow and will listen to any argument you make; if you win the arguments you make then you will win my ballot. If you dont want me to evaluate the round based on my flow then you need to convince me in round and give me reasons to prefer this way. This is probably an uphill battle though.

1. DA’s- Yeah these are good- go for them. I have made it my personal mission though to do away with PTX DA's predicated Political Capital links. It doesnt exist and is about as real as Britney Spears' talent.

2. CP’s- I will listen to anything you want to read but I think that they must be non-topical or at least extra topical to be fair (whatever that means) I just dont see an inherent strategic value to purely topical CP's in debate since I think there is a very high risk the aff would solve your net benefit. And I will listen to theory as to what status is fair although my inclination to vote on those args is discussed below. 3. Kritiks/K Aff's- I Run them both... I've read a lot of Heidegger, Nietzsche, Ocular Centrism, Zupancic, Zizek, etc. So if you want to run this its cool and if you do it well then I will be happy. Dont run a random K because I like them because if you are bad at this debate then I might not be so forgiving and may demonstrate my frustration via speaker points. 4. T/Procedurals- I will listen but I tend to err aff when it comes to these questions unless there is a blatant violation that truly causes a skew of some sort in the round. However the exception to this is when a throw away T/procedural is disregarded by the aff. Then I default to the voter on these args as my first evaluation in my decision as long as they are extended by the neg. Otherwise these debates annoy me since it really doesn’t hold sustenance for me as far as the topic is concerned. I would rather listen to 9 minutes of inherency takeouts (and I also am annoyed by inherency arguments) than try to determine arbitrary rules of exclusion.

5. Framework- I dont necessarily think that framework is a reason to vote either way (again I will vote on it given what happens in the round). I feel framework is just a gateway issue that allows you to weigh your impacts against their arguments. Impact turning framework is sexy to me. 6. Theory- Also kind of annoying; I tend to err neg on theory here but I guess I can be convinced otherwise. Go a little slower on these args so that I can get them all down since it is a more technical type of debate. Side note- if theory is all you have to sit on though come the rebuttals you aren’t in a winning position with me but I will still vote on it if it is mishandled by the other team and you explain it enough to where it is somewhat of a winnable arg where I don’t need to do work for you on it. 7. Speed- I prefer clarity over speed but I can follow fast debates just fine so go as fast as you want but I might yell clear at you if you aren’t. 8. Going over time- My timer will tell you verbally when to stop if you go way over time I might be tempted to throw something at you! 9. Cheap Shots- Don’t like them but in worst case scenarios I will vote for them. Hey I’m a debater and I have gone for them to when I had nothing else to stand on in the round. 10. Humor-Im ok with it be funny but not insulting. General jokes with the other people is fine little jabs ok but just be careful not to step over the line (which it is very thin).

How to win- IMPACT CALC… must be done otherwise you leave it up to me to do it for you and chances are it wont be in your favor because I will be mad at you for it. So yeah you don’t want me to do that. EXTENTIONS- If you dont extend the argument I wont do it for you; again I stick to my flow. LEAVE NO LOOSE ENDS- If you do then its the only instance I would intervene into the debate (You may think that is unfair but I think that you were unfair by putting me in that position). Its just in your best interest to make sure you fully develop your args and fully answer their args; you know like debate is supposed to be.

Speaker points: I don’t give many speaker point below 26 and generally to get a 26 you have to be trying. Here is a general guide that you can use so that you can know what to expect from me. 25.5 and below: You have just put me through pain and probably dont something to really piss me off and trust me by the end of my RFD you will know what you did. And you’re very lucky I didn’t freak out and beat you with your tub lid for it. Instead I have punished you the only community acceptable way and that is give you low speaks. 26-26.5: Today was clearly a rough day for you (and me since I had to watch you) but there may still be hope for you…someday. 27-27.5: These are about average for me I think. It means you did not piss me off (too bad) and you probably did some things ok. 28-28.5: You were pretty good. There were times in the debate that you surprised me with your prowess on a position that I thought was a turd. Good for you! 29-29.5: I rarely give 29’s and I am not sure that I have ever given a 29.5. To get these kinds of speaker points you have to just whip someone’s ass. And I mean someone good. 30—No, don’t even ask, not even on your birthday.

If I sound like an asshole to you then strike me... another round off means more prep for my teams.