Souders,+Michael

Mick Souders University of Kansas Year Judging: 5th

A PRELUDE I will not patronize you and say that I want you to debate how you want to debate. In truth, I want you to debate the way you want to debate if, and only if, that way does not excessively irritate me. Otherwise, you should debate the way you believe is most likely to win the debate that I am judging, even if that is not the way you want to debate. The reason is this: although debate is firstly about education, secondly about fairness, thirdly about community, it is the "fourthly about competition" part--i.e., trying to win--that keeps me interested. So ask yourself...take a breath...and think: "Is what I am about to do the right way to win THIS round at THIS tournament on THIS day against THIS team in front of THIS judge?"

POINTS: I rate speaker points as follows: <26 = awful. 26.5= bad. 27 = below average. 27.5 = mediocre. 28 =above average. 28.5 = very good. >28.5 = among the best I've seen all year. I tend not to weight my points by division, with the marginal exception of novice. I have never given a 30 in four plus years of college judging. I believe I've given two 29.5s.

THE SUBSTANCE My philosophy has changed over time. I find that I lack the will to enforce or prefer any ideological position in debates instead just prefer smart, warranted arguments of any type (who doesn't?). I mostly judge DA/CP debates against PLAN/ADV style affirmatives. This is probably a result of my past than any contemporary preference. There are several things that I find very important: (1) Good CX Skills: I feel like CX is getting worse before my eyes. Even ostensibly quality teams are unable to control CX, fall into bickering during it, or simply blow it off. CX is infinitely valuable for teams both in terms of perception and in arguments. (2) Good link arguments: I do not generally give much credence to the "risk of a link" assertion. Yes, links have higher and lower probabilities, but some have such low probability as to be negligible. You can win a no link argument in front of me, especially if their evidence or analysis really is awful. NOTE: By link I don't just mean DA or K links, I also mean TOPIC links. If you cannot defend your affirmative's link to the topic as significant and within the rules (i.e., you need to be able to win a debate about the "rules") you are in trouble with me. Other types of overwhelming defense are also compelling. (3) Good evidence: I strive to cut good cards for my teams and hope to see good evidence from debaters. Arguments about standards of evidence, quality within those standards, etc. are all arguments and discussions (perhaps in CX?) that are important to me. Really bad evidence, to me, is not evidence at all. Please help me evaluate the quality of your own and your opponent's evidence by framing it, indicting it, challenging it, supporting it, etc. in cross-examinations and speeches from start to finish. I both hate and like reading cards. Usually when I read a lot cards, the debate was bad. Sometimes, though, it means the debate was very good and I must verify the claims for myself. (4) Showcasing of Arguments: Too often, I hear the losing team claim that I missed the key 1AR argument that set up their 2AR spin. The post-round discussion reveals that what I missed in this nine total syllable argument is a near complete treatise on the absurdity of the 2NR's position. To avoid this carelessness on my part and so that you receive due credit for your treatise, ensure that you place an emphasis on arguments that are strategically crucial to your second rebuttal. When I say, "I think this "education key to forum" argument is good but pretty new in the 2AR," please do not say, "Dude, it was the 1AR. It was the #9 on my PICs good block. 'Pics key to education which is key to forum'. It's right here. (monologue of warrants follows)." Hopefully, you argument technicians can figure out what is wrong with such a response. (5) Structure: Help me flow. I feel like after eleven years in this activity that I can flow but that debaters often forget that do not get to see the blocks or tags after the speech and signpost very poorly. If my flow structure breaks down, you might not be happy. It is possible that you are simply too fast for me to flow or even understand. Consider this possibility. (6)Hilariousness: I like jokes. Even mean jokes. But not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. I know, not high on debaters (or even my) list of talents, but it's a matter of risk/reward. (7) Theory: 06-07 continues the trend of massive negative bias in debate. As a check against this, I am consciously become more and more open to affirmative theory. Whereas normally I generally consider conditionality acceptable, multiple counterplans acceptable, and other such things that make being affirmative much harder, I am now very open to arguments that claim I need to err affirmative on theory. I'll see if it makes a difference. (8) Ks. I don't even know why I make a seperate section on this anymore. I will vote them if you win them. Sometimes the wide range of often misused terminology can throw me a bit, so be careful. Additionally, be sure to explain impact/solvency arguments. "Alt solves the case, judge, they dropped it" will not reach the threshold of extension (this is true of cps and das links too, folks) so make you extend the actual argument label--i.e., the claim,--and probably a brief reason for your claim, not just the meta-debate label. (9) "Cheating" vs. __**Cheating**__. "Cheating" by not having a plan is a legitimate strategic choice. "Cheating" by hiding a topicality violation is a legitimate (if lame) tactical choice. "Cheating" with a 2NC floating PIC is a legitimate (and crafty) operational choice. **__Cheating__** by lying in affirmative disclosure, clipping cards, lying about what cards you read, "forgetting" to give the other team a block you read, lying in CX about the number or type of permutations you read, etc--that constitutes a gross violation of the mutually educational and fair forum of debate. Think the other team is **__cheating__** (i.e., they are lying about the number of perms)? Ask me what I have, if its a flow issue. If I didn't realise they were **__cheating__** (in which case I speak up on my own), I will at your prompting. But PLEASE do not fly off the handle. ASSUME your opponents do not wish to **__cheat.__** Only if the situation is absolutely unbearable or egregious should you speak up in accusatory terms.