Dillard,+Robbie

I debated for 4 years at Northland Christian School and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I now coach at Northland.


 * UPDATE FOR 2016 Kandi King Round Robin:**


 * I have not judged a debate in 1.5 years, so please go slower than you would normally (especially if it is at the beginning of the tournament). Also, I am not up to date with some of the current trends, so don't assume I know anything about the current topic or trends. You can run pretty much what you want, just make sure you explain it well. The rest of my paradigm still applies.**

Short Version: Policy arguments and theory are ideal. Any other arguments are fine (I have voted against util a good amount) except fairness isn't a voter. As long as you explain your arguments, you can pick up my ballot. My defaults are comparative worlds, competing interpretations, and reject the argument.

Paradigm: I default to a comparative worlds paradigm but am very open to truth-testing if it’s won.


 * Don’t be blippy. I will not vote for arguments that don’t have warrants. I also will not vote for arguments that I do not understand.**

Speed: I'm pretty bad at flowing, but I feel that I will still be able to keep up as long as you are clear. I will let you know if you are not being clear but make sure to slow down on tags and author names and signpost well. Also, as I will say later, please don't fly through any type of dense philosophy.

Theory: I default to competing interpretation but am open to reasonability if won. Run theory whenever you want to. It’s not my job to tell you when and when not to run arguments for a strategic purpose as long as I understand them. Fairness is a voter. Education is also probably a voter. Please weigh between them. I default to thinking theory is a reason to reject the argument. Also, I don't think offensive counter-interps make a ton of sense because generally speaking debaters don't actually generate unique offense from the mandate. That being said, if you run one and have a compelling reason why I should vote for it, by all means do it. On a small note, I don't think that you need to read an internal link from every theory standard to a voter. I think things like predictability, ground, etc. are known to link to fairness and unless it is some unique internal link, you can just say "predictability is key to fairness" and move on.

Kritiks: I rarely ever read Ks in high school and find them to be particularly hard to understand. You can read one, just be sure you actually know what it says and can explain it really well. If you can't answer simple questions about your kritik with answers that actually make sense, don't bother reading it in front of me. I will say this one more time, if you cannot explain your kritik in very simply, do NOT read it. I find performances and narratives to be interesting, but the ballot story a lot of the time doesn't really make much sense to me. Feel free to run these arguments, just be ready to explain exactly why I should vote for you.

Moral Philosophy: I find this slightly easier to understand than critical philosophy, just be sure that I understand the meaning and functionality of your framework arguments. Explain your arguments in a simple way and don't fly through dense philosophy.

Policy Arguments: This was what I primarily ran in high school. I would love to hear a good DA, CP, or plan, just make sure you know what you are doing. If you are going to run policy arguments, or any arguments really, please weigh. If you don’t weigh I am going to be really sad and will give you bad speaks. I will vote for any argument that you read, but these are the types of arguments I am most familiar with.

Extensions: I think that extensions need to be complete, but will give the 1AR leeway. If an argument is 100% conceded, I don't think that you need to have a full extension but just make sure you are extremely clear on the implication of that argument.

Speaks: I will probably average a 27 but am not afraid to give really good speaks if you have a really good strategy and/or you are really funny. If you run policy arguments (plans, CPs, DAs, etc) really well, this will make me the happiest and you will get much higher speaks. A 30 from me is not out of reach if you have a tremendous strategy.

Random things: 1. If you have skep triggers, a prioris, etc., and your opponent asks you about them in cx, you are not allowed to answer their questions with "what is a skep trigger/a priori?" or "I'm not sure what you mean by a priori." You obviously know what they are and this just makes you look bad. You will get bad speaks if you do this and it won't make me happy. 2. You should also make sure that you label something as a priori or a skep trigger in your first speech or at least make it clear that it is one if you want me to evaluate it. I will give leeway to opposing debaters in later speeches if these things are not labeled. 3. I think its generally better for debate if you number arguments. Do it. 4. Be funny in CX, but don't be a jerk. There is a distinction and if your not good at being funny then don't try. 5. If you are reading off your computer you should either have a viewing computer for your opponent to look at or you should be willing to flash the stuff you read over to them. There is no reason to run flash drive theory as I require this as a judge. Just do it in a timely manner. 6. CX is binding.


 * And lastly, but MOST important: Don't hide abuse, don't misnumber arguments, don't try to steal speech time, don't give your opponent a copy of your case that is different from the one you read and has like 5 font, and be honest about your arguments. If you are not and I find out about it, I will severely punish your speaks.**

Most of all, have fun! You are more than welcome to ask any questions before the round as well.