West,+Keith

Keith West Affiliation: Acton-Boxborough Background: Extemp, LD, and Congress in high school, Policy and Parli in college. Coached both high school and college speech and debate over the last 6 years.


 * LD Specific**

I’ve seen a lot of standards debates become very muddled, very quickly. The ultimate question I’m trying to answer when I look at this section of the debate is: “What impacts ‘count’ at the end of the day?” Any arguments that don’t tie into the value (through the Crit) aren’t relevant to me in the final analysis. That said, this is just my default position. If you want to set up some other sort of burden scheme or value certain arguments at an ‘a priori’ level or something, make sure to explain and justify why the round should be evaluated that way. If you and your opponent largely agree on the weighing mechanism for the round then so much the better – acknowledge it and get on to the rest of the debate.
 * -Value/Crit Debate**

Most of my theoretical grounding comes from policy/parli, but I have no problem with theory debates in general. Just make sure you can articulate As long as the argument is logically sound, well structured and clearly articulated I’m happy to jump onboard.
 * -Theory**
 * What your opponent is supposed to be doing
 * Why that’s a good/reasonable expectation for them
 * How they have failed to meet that expectation and,
 * What I should do about that.

I have no problem with almost any rate of delivery, just make sure you’re clear and give me about 10-15 seconds to get used to your voice at the start before you start blitzing. I’ll yell “clear” if needed. If you don’t become intelligible after that point then we’ve got problems. Also realize that it can be somewhat difficult to be as persuasive as you’d like at warp speed – you simply lose access to all the little things that can help to make your claims more credible/significant than your opponents. Just something to be aware of, especially in rebuttals.
 * -Speed**

Please use you last speech (or the last part of the 1NR) to compare your arguments to your opponents. The first half of the debate is about winning arguments, the second/last part is about explaining why it *matters* that you’ve won those arguments. I can’t count the number of rounds that have been saved by the phrase “Even if I lose this argument I still win because…” If you have any specific questions feel free to ask. I’m also happy to discuss rounds afterwards and give you any feedback/help that I can.
 * -Overall**


 * Policy Specific**

I haven’t judged on this topic yet, so if you get into a deep clash on definitions the standards debate will probably be even more important than usual since I don’t have a very deep grounding in the literature. I don’t generally require abuse stories to vote on T, but they certainly don’t hurt. Overall T’s alright with me.
 * -T**

I’ve found some of my most enjoyable and most frustrated judging experiences in critique debate. When you present a framework please make sure to couple your cards with actual explanation of the concept. If you’re claiming a pre-fiat impact make sure to explain why that’s justified. Be careful of critiquing cases that “link out” more than they link in (meaning that even though they may take action the critique objects to, they do far more to advance its ideas than to set them back).
 * -Kritiks**

I have no problem with theory debate, so long as you can articulate: As long as the argument is logically sound, well structured and clearly articulated I’m happy to jump onboard.
 * -Theory**
 * What your opponent is supposed to be doing
 * Why that’s a good/reasonable expectation for them
 * How they have failed to meet that expectation and,
 * What I should do about that.

My default decision calculus is that of a policy maker. Is the world a better place if I vote Aff or Neg. If you would like me to use some other kind of calculus or weigh certain arguments above others I’m happy to do that, just make sure to explain what framework you want me to use and justify it.
 * -Decision Calc**

I have no problem with almost any rate of delivery, just make sure you’re clear and give me about 10-15 seconds to get used to your voice at the start before you start blitzing. I’ll yell “clear” if needed. If you don’t become intelligible after that point then we’ve got problems. Also realize that it can be somewhat difficult to be as persuasive as you’d like at warp speed – you simply lose access to all the little things that can help to make your claims more credible/significant than your opponents. Just something to be aware of, especially in rebuttals.
 * -Speed**

Please use you last speech to compare your arguments to your opponents. The first part of the debate is about winning arguments, the last part is about explaining why it *matters* that you’ve won those arguments. I can’t count the number of rounds that have been saved by the phrase “Even if I lose this argument I still win because…” followed by solid impact comparison. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask. I’m also happy to discuss rounds afterwards and give you any feedback/help that I can.
 * -Overall**