Kohm,+Michael

Too Long; Didn't Read: -Speed ok (yell clear once and then put pen down) -Run what you want. Policy arguments (Ks, theory, DAs, etc.) ok -27.5 is average for speaker points (strategy-based) -tell me how to evaluate the round

About Me: I debated LD for Southlake Carroll in TX for 4 years. I competed on the TOC circuit (breaking frequently) from my sophomore year of high school, qualified to the Texas state tournament twice and broke to out-rounds, have coached members of my team and taught novices, and was a lab leader with the Texas Debate Collective. I'm a second year UC Berkeley student, studying Rhetoric (basically continental philosophy with an emphasis on discourse).

Soapbox: I am open to literally any argument. I don’t privilege specific argument types. I privilege debaters who make better arguments. If you make the argument and it's globally impacted for the round, I evaluate it. Everything that is in my paradigm is meant to help you understand my evaluative process, not discourage you from running whatever arguments you want. It's your round. Although I think the notion is noble, being tabula rasa is impossible, so I'll rant for a while here. When I debated, I ran all sorts of arguments (thoery, Ks, stock arguments-deon and util, DAs, truth testing/NIBS, counterintuitive arguments like “extinction good”, poetry performance, aff framework choice, etc.). I like creative cases (stock cases can be really interesting if nuanced). If you’re a good stock debater, cool. Do that, but explain why your opponent’s K is dumb (hint: sophisticated no-warrant arguments and skeptical Cross-X questions are your best friends). If you’re a LARPer, that’s cool (I can flow well). Run your 15 second util justification in the AC, but be prepared to debate framework if you have to. Whatever you run, have warrants. Debate is warrants. Weigh and be comparative; you have to explain why you should win (ie why your arguments are better than your opponent’s). Also, don’t hide behind buzz words-that goes for everything. Don’t make me decide a round based on what I think a buzz word means when you and your opponent disagree.

Speaker Points: I hate these with a passion, so I’ll try to be as fair as possible. I don’t care how you speak as far as how “persuasive” you are-whatever that’s supposed to mean (sorry, I don’t judge congress for a reason). Obviously inflection and how you say things can impact the meaning of what you’re saying and how I interpret it and it’s relative importance though. I care about strategy. Show you’re smarter than your opponent and you get speaker points. Be a jerk and you lose speaker points. 27.5 is average. 28+ is you might break. 29+ is you should definitely break. 30 is you’re awesome and should bid/win the tournament.

Theory: It’s probably important, but everyone should know it is often run poorly. Because of the procedural nature of it, I feel like this is the type of argument that is most likely to come down to a matter of opinion. If you’re a good technical theory debater, I probably won’t have to intervene. However, many theory debates ultimately require intervention (because they’re bad), so I’ll talk about my opinions. All of the following are subject to change if you make that argument. And remember, nuanced interpretations make the debate more strategic and interesting! Counter-interps are strategic for this reason too.

I’ll default to fairly/educationally evaluating the specific round, but making “this sets a bad norm” arguments are again fine. Most of the time, this shouldn’t matter though.

Fairness and education are not axiomatic. They must be warranted. They’re probably good sure, but tell me why.

I don’t require a competing interpretation or a shell format (making case specific theory arguments-ie paragraph theory-are fine if warranted), but I’m open to reasons why they should be required.

I think the competing interps. v. reasonability debate is silly, but you can have it if you want. You have to tell me what that actually means though. Some people think competing interps means x and some y.

You can make fairness isn’t a voter arguments, but many of these are bad. There are good ways to make this type of argument such as reconceptualizing what fairness should mean for the round. For example, “my opponent can disagree with my framework” seems like a pretty good response to a lot of theory arguments. Framework debate can be good too, but please don’t turn this into the classic fairness outweighs education battle. They become pretty interchangeable as “good debate” pretty quickly.

RVI’s are ok, but not assumed. Winning terminal defense on theory seems like it should be a reason to win if you also win an RVI (ie your RVI should include a reason why running theory is bad for debate if there’s nothing wrong).

I default to rejecting the argument, but warranting why they messed up the round and should be voted down is not that hard. Debate it out.

Kritiks: They’re fine, but you need an evaluative mechanism. Having specific case links is strategic, but not required. You have to be able to explain whatever complicated literature you run. Just because I’ve read some Lacan doesn’t mean I care that you can talk about the phallus and confuse your opponent. Also, the denser lit you read, the slower you should be reading. I can flow pretty fast, but nobody can understand Derrida at 400 wpm. The reason you run super critical positions is to outsmart your opponent anyway, so speed is less critical at these high level rounds than understanding and expressing yourself clearly. Trying to evade questions about your critical position is a good way to lose. If you straight-up don’t explain what your argument is in CX, I will be very tempted to intervene or vote off a really simple theoretical appeal (because purposeful obfuscation is pretty clearly bad for debate).

All other arguments: Have a standard or burden or something to tell me how I evaluate the round. Everything else is just comparative, so nothing I say should matter that much. Most debates are stock, so weigh and make good no-warrant arguments (ie explain why your opponent’s argument is missing a critical component instead of shouting “no warrant”). I’m not going to explain even more things you probably already learned from your coach or debate camp.