Calderwood,+Kevin

Kevin Calderwood Southern Illinois University Marquette High School (MO)

Background: I did policy debate in high school for four years. I currently do parliamentary debate in college.

I would characterize myself as preferring policy arguments to critical ones, but I am very open to vote in a world outside of those preferences. I think the round is yours, and my job is only to evaluate the arguments you present in the fairest way possible.

There are only two arguments I will never vote on. I will not vote on rape good. I have very personal issues with these types of arguments and you should not run them in front of me. Second, I think debaters should keep their clothes on. If you need to speak out because the body has been "sexualized" by the patriarchy, do it in another forum and not in a debate I am judging. Outside of those two specific arguments, you should not have any problems with argumentative choice.

As for other specific arguments...

1. Procedurals- To win topicality you do not have to prove in-round abuse, but it certainly helps your story. I am open to any interpretation of how I should evaluate procedural arguments. I think in almost every instance, procedural debates come down to competing interpretations, so be sure to have one.

2. Theory- I enjoy good theory debates, although on counterplan theory I have a tendency to err negative. To win theory debates you should treat your argument like a disad, and do impact calculus. The team that best weighs their argument will come out ahead. Remember that you are not reading evidence, so slow down during these debates to give me pen time.

3. Disads- Uniqueness is the most important part to win on the disadvantage, and controls the direction of the links or impacts. Impact analysis on the disadvantage should start as early as possible.

4. Counterplans- I think that the negative team's best friend is some type of counterplan. It is hard to win a round without a counterplan unless you really do a good job of taking out the 1AC offense.

5. Critical Arguments- I have come to enjoy these debates a lot in the last few years, I just do not have a lot of experience reading the literature. However, you shouldn’t let this keep you from running these arguments. I only ask two things: (1) make sure you understand your critique, and be able to explain it to me. (2) Have a competitive framework. The block overview and 2nc analysis is essential, just like on every position. Don’t assume I understand what your Zizek evidence says, just like you shouldn’t assume that I understand what your counterplan advocates say.

6. Case- I think that affirmatives should be able to defend their own case, and if they can't, it can in some cases be convincing enough for me to vote on it. Also, affirmatives should use their 1AC throughout the entire debate. You read it for a reason, and most likely it is written to pre-empt a lot of negative positions and outweigh disadvantages.

7. Impact Calculus- please, do not make me do this for you because chances are it will bring my own biases into the round. Telling me whether magnitude or probability is most important makes my job a lot easier. I think it is devastating for 1ar's to concede impact calculus if it is started in the 2nc/1nr.

8. Speed- I am a big fan of hearing good, fast, rounds. I have never had trouble flowing really fast debaters, but if it becomes an issue I will let you know verbally.