Stout,+Dan

Stout, Dan Kansas State University Debated at Kansas State University Treaties(02-03) - Courts (06-07), Coached at McPherson High School (Kansas) on the National Service Topic (06-07) Have Judged High School Rounds on a very limited basis since fall of 02, started judging College Fall of 07


 * General Things-** I really don't like to do work for debaters or teams. I feel the best debaters aren't the ones that read a million cards, but the ones that can take limited pieces of evidence and compare, contrast, and form arguments that specify why you should win. In order to do this a team needs to compare evidence, compare arguments and most importantly compare impacts.


 * Topicality-** I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts (standards) and discuss what interpretation of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters (which is debatable, what is the goal of debating, learn to be good policy makers, open up discursive space, or whatever). The Goals and purpose of debate is very debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others, for example, is limits and topic education more important than discursive space? These questions should be discussed in the round to establish the framework for how I'm supposed to evaluate the impacts.


 * The K-** I like Ks, have nothing against them, but what does need to be done is establish how your Kritik interacts with the affirmative and what does that mean for evaluating the round. Is your K a psycho analytic K and therefore interacts with the affirmative in a way that shows the desires and causes of the affirmatives impacts all while creating a new way of looking and interacting in the world? Does your affirmative K the methodology which the knowledge presented by the 1ac was acquired? These questions need to be talked about and need to create some sort of framework for how I should evaluate the round. The number one thing that affirmatives can do to win against Ks is debate theory on the alternative so they aren't allowed to defend Utopian worlds against your affirmative.


 * Performance-** I enjoy it, I just want to know what your argument is, If I can't figure out what your argument is, or you don't establish how and why I should evaluate things that are presented then you are probably going to lose.


 * Counterplans-** I like them, I'm going to be leaning negative on all counterplan theory except for dispo, conditionally ( I think both are more bad than good) and consultation. The doesn't however mean you can just say those arguments and win. I will still require more than just reading blocks, and require that affirmatives debate line by line in the theory debate and most importantly keep it clean.

If there are any other questions I'd just ask me before the round, The more specific the question the better answer I'll be able to give to you.