Krause,+Gage

//If you have any clarification questions or any comments, you can reach me at rkrause@utexas.edu. Never be afraid to come find me after round and ask questions.//


 * Quick Version**
 * I’m tab. Run whatever arguments you enjoy reading. Debate whatever style is most comfortable to you. I think some degree of intervention is inevitable, so I make sure to minimize it as much as possible. I will only intervene on args that support objectively bad things like ableism, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.
 * No preference on speed, but I like faster debates. Just be clear on authors/tags.
 * Flashing isn’t prep. If you take 3+ minutes to flash, I’ll change my stance accordingly. I’m fine with email chain and apps like Pocketbox.
 * Fine with flex prep
 * Default tech>truth
 * Default competing interps but can definitely be persuaded to vote on reasonability.
 * There is a point in which good analysis should be preferred over evidence dumps (especially repetitive evidence).
 * Yes, I’m fine with K’s.
 * A complete argument has three parts: claim, warrant, and impact. Do all three and I’ll evaluate it.
 * I won’t do the work for you on the flow. It’s your responsibility to extend warrants—not mine.
 * Drops aren’t independent voters—tell me why they matter.

__Speaks__ I probably give an //average// of around 28.5 for speaks. I’ll get more or less nitpicky on speaks depending on the tournament (is it a local? Is it a ToC bid? Etc.) Your speaker points start at around a 27, and I go up and down from there.
 * Less-Quick Version**
 * Things that will improve speaks include**, but are not limited to, making unique/interesting strategy choices, being super clear and organized on the line by line, directly refuting warrants in evidence, being strategic in cross-x, being funny.
 * Things that will lose you speaker points include**, but are not limited to, talking down to others (including your partner), having your partner speaking for half of your speech for you, being hostile.

__K’s/K Affs__ You can run whatever K you want. If you want to know my knowledge on X author, please just ask. I’ve run K’s since my first round of debate and focus a lot of my attention toward critical lit. I would like to think that I’m pretty well-versed in K lit, so you are safe in running just about anything. //The only caveat to you running a K is that you believe/are interested in it to some degree.// In other words, **if you are running a K //purely// because you read this/I’m in the back of the room, I would prefer that you run something else instead.** K’s must tell me a story. If I don’t get your alt or I don’t get your link, that is indicative that you didn’t do a sufficient job in explaining the warrant. I would like permutation debates to be well-developed and articulated. What I mean by this is that you should tell me what the world of the permutation looks like. Reading 6 perms that are a maximum of 4 words each is less persuasive than one smart, well-explained permutation. Good perms = good speaks. While I do not flow cross-x, these are still ethos moments. Meaning, if you sound like you have no clue what you’re talking about, then I am less likely to buy the advocacy coming out of the alternative. On K Affs: I am very much open to K affs, non-traditional AC’s, performance, etc. Most recently, I have become really invested in performance debate and spend a large amount of my time researching/coaching it. You can read poetry, show me a video, draw a map, rap, scream for 7 minutes—I don’t care. I only care that you have an advocacy of some sort, and it is __clear__. This means having advocacies along the lines of “We advocate that we should deconstruct the relationship between the United States and China” says absolutely nothing to me. I need a mechanism. Whether your mechanism is your performance of the AC, your pedagogy, a hardline strategy, etc. to combat whatever you are criticizing, it must be in the AC and be explained throughout the debate. I want to know what happens when I circle Aff (if your Aff even still believes in a ballot). The better job you do in explaining your advocacy will likely translate to me being more persuaded by your arguments on any Framework, T, or Theory args. Well-explained, creative K answers to T/Framework will undoubtedly get you the 30.

__CP’s__ I am fine with whatever CP you want to run. Just remember that sketchy CPs (depending on the round) run the risk of me voting on Theory. Please slow down on counterplan texts. I want to make sure that I have a clear interpretation on the CP in case of a theory argument. Refer back to what I said on perms before.

__DA’s__ I don’t know why anyone would ever have a bias on a DA. As long as I understand the link story, you’re good.

__Link Analysis__ Links and link turns need to be well-explained. As said similarly before, I don’t want to hear //VH1’s Top 50 Greatest Link Turns of the Past Decade//. Often the amount of args need to yield to good analysis. You need to go beyond just reading tags and saying “they dropped this” in your arguments/extensions. I need to know how A gets to B.

__T/Theory__ Please give me warranted standards and voters. Theory and T should explain an abuse story. T and Theory aren’t exempt from the rule that a complete argument has three parts: claim, warrant, and impact. Saying “voter for fairness and education” and //nothing else// is a really good way for me to immediately not care about your abuse claims. I don’t have theory/T predispositions. I can relatively easily be persuaded to consider reasonability but will default competing interps.

__LD__ I’m fine with new theory in the 1AR and 1AR K’s. I can judge both V/C and “progressive” LD. I judge whatever debate I am given.

__General Things__ I believe debate should be an inclusive activity. If I ever get an indication or feeling that you are actively destroying the inclusivity of the debate space or in some way limiting other debaters’ access to education due to your behavior in round, you can expect four things: 1. You will not win. 2. You will definitely not get top speaker. 3. I'll have a discussion with you about your actions. 4. Your coach will have a discussion with you about your actions (because I will make sure that I talk to them). Don’t repeatedly cut people off in cross-x. An easy way to make me upset is to steal prep. When you say “cease prep” or your timer beeps, I expect you to stop prepping with your partner and give your speech. I will call you out. Please just take an extra few seconds of prep to talk to your partner about whatever it is you need to discuss. I think 4 times out of 5 my RFD’s and critiques are pretty clear. However, I am very much aware that this is not always the case. At almost every tournament, I am in round through finals alongside doing prep with my debaters. It can be exhausting, which can kill my effectiveness to communicate. Please ask me questions or straight up tell me “I literally have no clue what you even just tried to say.” I won’t be offended. If anything, I’ll be apologetic. I can usually tell if what I said was confusing. If I’m not helping you learn, then I’m not doing my job, and I shouldn’t be paid. Please ask me questions, and don’t be afraid to come find me outside of round. Use me as a resource.