Wright,+Kris

Kris Wright
I have judged and coached on the local Texas and national circuits for over 13 years, the vast majority of which I exclusively judged and coached LD. I coached LD at Marcus, Westlake, Southlake, University School, and the Law Magnet. I was the director of debate at the Law Magnet for four years (2012-2016), where I also coached policy debaters to local and national successes. I am currently part of a team applying to open a charter high school in Dallas, while also continuing to work as an assistant coach for the Law Magnet and as a private coach for individual LDers outside of Dallas.

I’ve previously been an instructor at UTNIF, the Championship Group, Mean Green, VBI, NDF, and TDC summer debate institutes. I am the co-founder of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and one of the summer institute directors.

__**On the broad questions of how I see resolutions and how to make me regard them otherwise**__ I see debate as a contest between individuals attempting to prove a proposition true or false. What is required to prove a resolution true or false depends upon the meaning of the resolution and so is unique to a particular resolution. Sometimes the burden is lighter for the Affirmative, sometimes the negative. Although I view the round through a truth-paradigm, the standard for proving a proposition true is adjustable under a truth-paradigm: this means several things for the thoughtful debater:
 * I can be persuaded to evaluate the resolution's truth from the perspective of an evaluation of competing worlds or policy making (if those are somehow distinct vantage points) by winning either of the following: (a) giving a semantic analysis of the resolution that justifies that the resolution's meaning necessitates such a framework for the normative question to be answered (ex: such and such phrase(s) in the resolution support an interpretation that the resolution is asking us whether we ought prefer this action to this other action + reasons why consequentialism is the only valid ethical theory (at least for such choices) or (b) theoretical arguments (i.e., concerns for fairness or education) for why I ought evaluate the round from that perspective independent of the meaning of the resolution. However, my default is to regard the resolution as a proposition whose form and/or content does not definitively necessitate that the proposition's truth or falsity be determined through comparing effects (that is, via a standard only concerned with impacts as opposed to implications)
 * the standard of sufficient justification, even for proving a proposition of truth true, is adjustable. My personal (default) expectation for how strict the Affirmative satisfies their resolutionally specific burdens is not one of absolute certainty. In fact, I would probably view the level of certainty required to be akin to a civil trial (i.e., preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt). Given that this is a game and there are time constraints, I tend to give the Affirmative a little bit of leeway when resolving disputes over particular issues that were not adequately settled by the debaters themselves. However, I’m not going to do much work in those situations, so don’t expect me to piece together a 1 and 2AR into something that looks quite different than they did in the round.

A judge’s job is to determine whether or not arguments are sufficiently responded to and whether the arguments in the round necessitate affirming or negating. This conclusion is reached through a comparison of the competing reasons advanced by the debaters. Such evaluations will inevitably be imperfect and are based upon the perception of how strong the arguments are being justified in the round. With that said, I won’t vote on something that I think is a blip, even if it is dropped—I’m left with no reason to think it’s true without even the attempt at a relevant warrant. This also means that I will frequently vote on arguments that I know to be absurd, false, and easily beaten---when I do, the reason that I vote on such arguments is that the opponent gave comparatively worse analyses in response.

__**Defaults on Theory**__ I default to a version of competing interpretations. My default view over what that paradigm should entail is that a debater who wins their counter-interp is a comparatively better than a competitive interp has won the theory debate and does not need an additional "RVI" argument to make that sufficient to win the round (assuming, of course, that there aren't arguments being made elsewhere that are justified as sufficient for me to vote on and justified as operating at a higher level than the theory flow). To be clear, I can be pushed off these defaults by a debater making an argument in the round that I should view theory differently.

My threshold for voting on theory (and my threshold for being pushed off my default views) is making arguments that are comparatively better than your opponent.

I have no default position on whether theory arguments should be prioritized over the K or vice versa, in part because I often think these arguments are making competitive claims. In the absence of debaters making arguments either way, I will be left to make a judgment call based on the particular content in of the theory and K flows.

__**Creatively Topical and totally Non-topical AFFs**__ Fine by me. I've coached many of my own students, in LD and Policy, to run creative re-interpretations of the topic or to run straight up non-topical AFFs. Some of these were among my favorite AFFs to have helped students develop. With that said, I am willing to vote on T and other theoretical arguments in response to such AFFs. I certainly do not think that T/theory are the only (or always the best) negative strategy, but I think debates over how to interpret the meaning of the resolution and the significance of the resolution in establishing the win conditions for the round are intellectually and politically valuable sites for students to engage and dispute. For me, the resolution of that debate is not a question of the AFF or NEG meeting some pre-established threshold for me, but rather merely a question of who did the comparatively better job *in this round* of arguing for or against the AFF's non-topical advocacy being sufficient for me to vote for.

__**What do you think of the "strategy" of morally objecting to moral skepticism?**__ In several rounds over the past few years I've noticed debaters respond to moral skepticism by arguing that judges should vote against their opponent for running it b/c the position is morally offensive. I think it worth noting here that I deeply dislike debaters to give mere blips or ad hominems as a "good enough reason" for me to disregard relatively-well developed arguments. The absurd claim that making an argument about moral skepticism should be disregarded because it is morally bad is a perfect example of begging the question and, therefore, is not a response at all. Given that this "strategy" must ask me to completely intervene, as it makes an impact to a (moral) standard that the skeptical argument substantively refutes, I will disregard this discursive objection entirely and give an RFD heavily focused on why the "strategy of moral outrage" against skepticism is super-duper shitty: **any argument with well developed warrants deserves to be taken seriously and responded to in kind. Anything less than that is intellectually (and in many cases ethically) objectionable.**
 * (**__note: I think this strategy is entirely different from a theoretical objection that argues that out of concern for fairness or education we ought to interpret the resolution so that moral skepticism does not affirm or negate__**).

__**Additional specifics for Policy Debate**__ Refer to the earlier section concerning creatively topical and non-topical Affs.

I feel compelled to somewhat adjust when entering a policy round, given there are some significant differences in current norms from LD. I recognize that in most policy rounds, the default decision calculus is not only consequentialist but is, in particular, utilitarian (where utilitarianism is (mis)understood to mean minimizing the loss of life) and that the AFF is not expected to justify this unless the negative contests it.

However, I think the failure to invest time in warranting a decision calculus and the assumption of consequentialism (let alone util) is an intellectually and politically destructive, not to mention strategically questionable insofar as it leaves a crucial level of the debate vulnerable to a good NC challenge. All that to say, I am a huge fan of negs that push back by rigorously defending a different, strategically chosen decision calc ("role of the ballot" or anything else you want to label it) on the assumed decision calculus in the round against AFFs that merely assume util. I am equally a fan of AFFs that invest time in the 1AC getting ahead on what the decision calc should be. Given the state of contemporary policy debate, critical teams are usually the only ones attempting to build up a warranted decision calculus (not to be confused with the "weighing debate," which itself presupposes a particular kind of decision calculus under which the comparison of impacts is to be done). I think traditional policy teams (and all policy debaters for that matter) would do well to learn how to invest time in rigorously warranting a decision calculus and controlling internal links into a variety of different decision calculuses.

I'm fine with Open CX, unless the tournament (e.g., UIL) explicitly requires otherwise.

I prefer sign-posting to specific arguments to do line-by-line extensions and analysis, rather than long overviews that do more than merely mapping out the big-picture. I prefer author name before extending the warrant. I prefer explicit comparison of warrants and implications, rather than "embedded clash."

I am not compelled by refutation that constructs a counter-argument that only clashes on the level of the claim---this occurs in the majority of rounds. I am simply left with two claims and no reason for preferring either. Instead, you should be dealing with the internals of arguments. In other words, specifying steps in your opponent's reasoning and explicitly contest that step. This mistake is most prevalent when debaters read cards against a case, though this is certainly not an inherent problem with reading cards as responses. I want a response that refutes the specific analysis of your opponents argument—this can be included in a counter claim or can be offered by itself. So if you read a card in response you need to articulate what implied assumption or explicit line of reasoning the card disproves.
 * __A point or two about refutation in general, my (in)ability to flow, and a sketch of how I allocate speaker points__**

I have a similar complaint about "no warrants' responses. "No warrant" is almost never a sufficient response b/c most arguments have some, albeit insufficient, justification. Instead, you should (a) specify the specific step in the reasoning that is missing and (b) justify why that missing step is necessary for the argument to be sound. Then give me the global implications of that argument being unsound.

I cannot flow as well as I could when I was younger. You don't have to go terribly slow, but for some of you it should certainly be a conscious effort to slow down. I have no idea how to give you an upper-limit on speed that still effectively communicates to me in this paradigm. ..

I will yell "clear" or "louder" in the round---at least a few times---when appropriate.

Speaker points tend to begin at 27 and go up or down depending on the clarity of your signposting, the respect you give your opponent, and the quality of the argumentation. If you teach me something or change my opinion on an issue, you are likely to make me excited enough to bump up your speaks quite a bit.

If you have questions before or after the round or disagree, feel free to question and challenge me. The only conditions are that you are (a) capable of justifying your position and (b) are respectful. I will probably have a stern look on my face at every moment I’m at a debate tournament. I assure you I am not upset, mean, or unapproachable; I’m just usually not aware of my facial expressions. So feel free to come find me at almost any time during the weekend.

--Kris Wright