Kuswa,+Kevin

Argumentation over repetition. Explanation over jargon. This is not a judge philosophy as much as it is a place to preface the beginning of a debate. I thought about dividing my comments into various positions: counterplans, topicality, case debate, etc. That type of division will not help to explain the three things I want to emphasize. 1. Qualifications on authors and evidence are fruitful locations for debate—what constitutes a qualification is, like everything else, open to debate—so let’s hear it. We know all evidence is not the same, yet much of the time in the speeches is devoted to reading it. What are the distinctions and why do they matter? 2. I do not read many cards after the round—often none. If there is a card or three that warrants another look, specify what and why. Excessive highlighting cannot always be ignored…objectivity is a utopian practice so you should expect subjective, yet hopefully balanced, evaluation of the arguments. 3. I do not have a preference for or against speed, although I do have a preference in favor of comprehensibility. Examples and warrants are usually more compelling than tags and crypticism. Enjoy—humor never hurts. Kevin