Reed,+Henry

History: -High School Debate: 4 Years, Varsity- Kansas -College Debate: 3rd Year- The University of Kansas, I was also a 3 week lab leader at the JDI- I have a pretty good understanding of the topic and am familiar with most arguments that could be ran.  -Coaching- 3 Years: 2 @The Pembroke Hill school, This is my first year working with blue valley south west. I have judged almost exclusively TOC level debate and judge all debates although I haven’t judged any before the Glenbrooks this season. As an educator I don’t believe that is right for me to tell debaters what arguments that I want them to run, more so I believe that debaters should do what they do, and I’ll do the best to adjudicate the debate.  T- I’m not the best technical T judge, on the other hand I’m a fantastic FW/resolutionality judge. I conceptually understand all parts of topicality and can competently judge any form of T. However, as a debater T is almost never in my 2NR and I haven’t successfully gone for it in a year. So I think some tips to make T an easier win for me on the neg.  · I view T like counterplans and disads i.e Offense defense- you should frame your standards as such, i.e limits disad ect. Paint clear interal inks between different standards and impact arguments  · Have a clear violation and be able to explain in broad terms what the violation is and what it means for debate- this should be the clearest and most comprehensible facet of your argument.

If you’re a critical affirmative- I’ll be on the same page with whatever your saying, I was a very successful critical 2A on the energy topic and most of understanding the mechanics of T come from that critical positionally- hence my proclivity towards fw/rez instead of T. Make sure you have a counter interp that solves most of there offense or if not your If you’re a policy affirmative and your arguably topical- this may be problematic, I usually have a hard time justifying not voting on t when there is little access for the affirmative to impact turn T. Disad Vs Policy I’m good with these debates as long as the impact calculus is clear, external and how It outweighs. All of case should also be neutralized in the 2nr to win your chances. You need to approach your overview and link analysis with more narratives with me just as apposed to techy line by line, connect the dots for me so I don’t have to.

Disad vs K I don’t think this is the most strategic option. Usually if the affirmative provides some type of advocacy statement its usually criticism of the way I evaluate the debate and how the disad is framed. Its an uphill battle that makes you have to win framing (Util good args along with the validity of the disad) CP- All counter plans are allowed if they are justified, but they have to have a net benefit. I think that theory is a voter if its well developed. I would vote on counter plans that are textual or functionally competitive but I think that is also a debate to be fleshed out. Make advantage counterplans not on the case, also if your running agent counterplan run aspect to generate competition. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> K- I’m most familiar with this literature and I go for these arguments the most. I’m flexible in whatever deployment you want of them but I think that it misses the point of the criticism to not be specifically about the affirmative. That being said im a big fan of topic specific criticisms. You should have to win a clear link, the best critical debaters are usually ones who can make the best link extrapolation. I also think that the impact framing needs to be clear. A2 2ac Fw- you have to answer the substantive theory they put on there interp i view that in an offense defense debate think that even if your criticizing those standards that work has to be done. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> ROB- this argument has become deployed more recently as an overarching framing mechanism for most critical/alternative debates. I agree with the notion of framing your argument, however the arbitrary assemblage of a “role of the ballot” seems to beg a broader question what arguments are being made. Simply extending your role of the ballot doesn’t win you debates and it doesn’t excuse ignoring large portions of your opponents arguments. However I think I always evaluate the debate on who does the better debating and if you win your argument you don’t need to win a role of the ballot. Just operating under that assumption I find creates more embedded clash within each argument.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Im welcome to all formulation of argument in any stylsic method in whichever way you would like to criticize debate or debate practices. Theory- i believe there are offensive and defensive theory arguments, offensive would be something requiring me to reject the team i.e condo bad versus something defensive which would mean dropping the arg i.e agent counter plans bad. if you do go for theory please show me how it interacts with the round as a whole, you have paint me a clear abuse story. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Demeanor issues: Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited – the debate is a safe space for learning and interaction. Evidence must be presented in an academic fashion. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc.

Any Questions Please Ask.