Kuenzel,+Bob

Affiliation: Ashland (OR) H.S.
 * Bob Kuenzel **

==== Most any well-developed argument can get my ballot. This is not to say that all arguments have equal weight, or that some are not inherently more likely to be shown preposterous by good adversaries. But K’s, T, theory, PICs, multiple advocacies, etc., are all fair ground to win debates before me – if the people running them make them work. I should say that: (1) I walk into the room tending to believe that the Aff should defend a topical plan. (2) I tend to skew a little bit affirmative on most T arguments, but am legitimately open to a well-run T challenge. And extraT, of course. . . (3) On K’s: I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise, but my default is that I’m much more willing to vote for a K that’s been impacted to show that it really outweighs or better solves the Aff or somehow makes a real difference “on the ground,” or is a matter of reps that are so fundamentally wrong that they truly ought to foreclose further debate on the topic we’ve otherwise come here to discuss. (4) On theory, (a) if you want me to drop the team, not just reject the arg, you'd probably better impact your argument to the round, and (b) I've voted for it, but it takes a pretty good demonstration (or a lopsided debate) for me to conclude that mere conditionality on, say, a single counterplan and a single K is a reason to reject a team -- making that "impact the argument to the round" point even more important here. ====

Clarity is important to me. I mean it – both as to speech and thought. Speed doesn’t bother me, but (1) a few – though pretty few – of you are too fast for me to hear and get all your arguments, even if you’re clear, and (2) a much larger number of you aren’t nearly as clear as the speed you want to use requires. It should go without saying that you //really// want to get all your arguments (at least all the good ones) onto my flow. If you think this may be an issue, either slow down till you’re clear, or – better yet, **//and//** -- make sure you emphasize (at least) your argument headings and tags, the principal warrants for your major cards, etc. Bottom line: What I can’t hear and understand, I will likely treat you as responsible for not communicating if it turns out to be a voting issue.

Likewise, even though I’m at least somewhat familiar with a good number of the major K theories, in front of me, blitzing through a card outlining the principles or warrants of an esoteric K argument as if it were a policy card citing an example of a successful policy initiative is just silly. Reading eight conclusory theory claims in 20 seconds is also likely to be both unpersuasive -- what? you forgot the warrants? -- and also too fast to let me write them all down. What you don’t make a point of explaining so smart people can understand you may prove to be hard for you to convince me to vote for. Also: Obvious “blips,” undeveloped, simply for time skews or in the hope that the other side won’t have heard it either and may thus give you room to argue a “drop,” are unlikely to get much weight with me.

Evidence is obviously good; but all evidence is clearly not created equal. Don’t be afraid to use that reality. Most teams don’t do enough work taking on the weaknesses in opponents’ evidence, or really selling the superiority of their own. Also: for some arguments, data and other hard facts (as opposed to someone’s opinions) actually matter, even quite a lot. Finally, good analytics can > bad cards.

Skillful CX is valued here: an opportunity to take command, set up strategic positions, pin down the adversary, etc. that is often largely wasted. Good work here will help your speaks; even better, it can absolutely help you win more debates. People often ask, so: Yes, “tag team CX” is OK, but it may cost you in points if one player tools the other; a little “tag team” in speeches is also OK (same caveat) – but I don’t want to hear a whole 2NR, e.g., piped from a seated debater to the one supposedly giving the speech.

Sometimes it’s not a matter of choice. But when it is: I want to see you clash with and actually //engage// the other side’s arguments. It’s also important to me to see you //advance// your arguments in response to the other side’s -- not only “extend” them (by repeating or incorporating by reference).

Offense is good, and is usually a safer route to winning; but you may as well know that I am __not__ one of those who believe that the Aff must win good offense to prevail on a DA or net benefit. There are a lot of impacts prowling the night in the world of debate that are, in truth, preposterously attenuated; and in front of me, the .0000000001 risk of [//fill in the blank with the impact of your choice//] can be knocked out with strong defense.

I say this to my teams, so I might as well say it to you: In closing speeches, it’s extremely important to fully engage what the other side’s said (or likely to say) on their best arguments, as well as making hay of the stuff you think you’re winning on. As often as good teams get away with it, a 2NR or 2AR that delivers only a good line-by-line is a missed opportunity – how often have you really crushed the other side on every line of all the flows? (This doesn’t mean there must be an overview, just that wherever you put the argument, you have to do this work.) Sure, you can cut off the other side’s best stuff with a logically prior (and sufficient) answer that doesn’t otherwise “meet” their claim, and it’s hard to engage better than with a really sweet (and well-handled) turn. But just reasserting or even advancing what you like on the flow isn’t doing enough work to win //unless you tell me why it matters more, or deserves first consideration, **even if,**// //etc.// If I say I don’t want to intervene, that means I’m not going to want to do that work for you, right? And it surely means if you’re 2NR and don’t do your job here, and the 2AR does, and can plausibly claim to be the only one who’s taking fair account of the other side’s best arguments -- or vice versa -- well. .

//Civility matters. Be nice; nastiness loses points.// Also, in all honesty, a lot of rounds are close enough that there would be some pretty legitimate ground for voting either way. If you’re mean and unlikeable, I’ll vote for you if I should; but can I really promise that I’ll bend over backwards to be totally sure before signing the ballot for the other side? (I promise you: this is not unusual among judges, except perhaps in its candor. If you're such a jerk that even your judge comes to hate you, you'd better really demolish your opponents; close ones are more often than not going the other way. . . )

Last, surely not least: Have fun. A bunch of people have said this, but I think it’s true: What you enjoy debating, and have invested enough in to make yourself really good at, is likely to be fun for me to judge as well.

So, have at it.