Kelley,+Logan

Any questions, concerns, or email chains can always be directed to logan.kelley@ttu.edu Years of involvement in debate - 8.

I have coached and then judged about every genre of argument at many levels of ability. Looking at my old wiki will not do you any good, because I competed at a small school who wanted to compete with national teams and it heavily affected my strategic ability. What you run has little meaning to me, and I care care more about your implementation of the strategy. I will almost always think tech over truth, but that doesn’t mean that I will put up with sexist, racist, xenophobic, or heteronormative comments in round. Personally, tech-over-truth is the best way for me to objectively evaluate a debate round, so if you think otherwise, I would encourage that to be a part of your speech.
 * Before round: **

I am a super flow centric judge, because I think it’s the most objective way to judge debates. That being said, if you are not involving me in your email chain please take the either verbal or non-verbal pause between cards. A simple “and” between cards will do wonders for you when I have to make a decision. If you use gendered language, you will lose speaks (Edit your evidence, people!). If you misgender your opponent(s) in round, you will lose speaks. If you impose race or gender onto your opponent(s), you will lose speaks. I will almost always view the round through offense/defense unless I have a framing question telling me otherwise. One other things to note about the aff’s as I have judged more debates – I think that critical affirmative teams get away with a lot more ground then they usually should in the context of permutations. This does not mean that I won’t vote for a perm or even that I don’t love a good perm debate, but I will likely ask to see your permutation evidence at the end of the round. I have voted for and against framework debates about the same amount of times. I am particularly compelled to vote on case list/topical version of the aff’s and real world framing arguments, so take from that what you will. However, I have always and will always see framework as a test of the desirability of the aff, and will not put up with “wrong forum” rhetoric. Some things to keep in mind:
 * If you are actually reading my phill: **
 * Aff’s ** – I almost always will default to the fact that I think the aff should be in the direction of the resolution at a minimal, because I don’t think that reading back files from years ago on a policy aff is educational for anyone. That being said, past that I have no preference one way or the other. I stand strong on the idea that if debate was never a space and has never defended you, you should not have to defend anything that you don’t want too. I really enjoy performance aff’s and almost exclusively ran them when I was in HS, but that does not mean that hyper-specific policy aff’s (which I almost exclusively read in college) will not win my ballet, so take from that what you may.
 * T/FW ** – I will default to competing interoperations, because I think it will result in the least amount of intervention. However, if I am given arguments that indicate otherwise or even that I shouldn’t evaluate T, that is a debate to be had on the flow.
 * DA’s – ** I think uniqueness frames the direction of the link usually, please feel free to tell me why I am wrong in round. I really enjoy good politics debates almost as much as I enjoy really specific DAs.
 * CP’s – ** I really like DA/CP debate and will always view the CP through the lens of net benefit’s unless told otherwise. I have and will vote on super specific PIC’s. I have and will vote on multiple plank CPs. I have and will vote on uniqueness counter plans. I tend to err neg on the subject of theory with CPs, but that does not mean you should be sloppy and not answer theoretical objections.
 * K’s – ** This is where I am and always was the most comfortable in debates, but please don’t change your style for me. I would enjoy a meta level framing question, but I understand that sometimes teams just don’t want one. Don’t assume I know your author, but don’t butcher evidence either. The more specific the link the better in most debates (or at least make analysis, even if you don’t have a card).
 * 1) Fiat is not real is not an argument. Fiat is a test of the desirability of an advocacy, which means that fiat never should pretend to do anything outside of the round.
 * 2) I love K tricks/the hat and frequently utilized them, but don’t lose track of the flow for the sake of more offense.
 * 3) I will vote on and against theoretical arguments around the K such as “no permutations in a method debate”.