Kissinger,+Ishmael

Last Updated 9/3/16

Ishmael Kissinger Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (JV & Open) 8 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK Policy Rounds Judged: Local - 40+ Policy National/Toc - 20 +/- LD Rounds Judged Local: <10 LD National/TOC - 5 +/- Ishmaelkissinger@mooreschools.com

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate. CPs are legit Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands) DAs are cool Case args are sweet

Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points - or pol cap with me.

LD -

I am new(er) to judging National Circuit LD; most of my squad is Policy Debate so I tend to put myself in that pool. As such most of the things that I said in Policy are true for LD as well. Speed is fine, T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse, etc.

Specifics: There is emerging theory in LD that is unique/different from policy debate, IE RVIs on Topicality issues for the affirmative. I will need you to slow down and explain these arguments to me as if I have never heard them before. Justify why **in LD** it is necessary to protect the 1ar from Topicality arguments and why that justifies an affirmative ballot.