Deming,+Kyle

Judge Philosophy – Kyle Deming Strikes: GDS, Westminster Last updated: April 2012

2011-12 topic: I have judged around 20-30 debates on the space topic, but my last high school tournament was Ohio Valley (early December). I'm a little rusty on the acronyms.

Potentially relevant biographical info: I’m a junior-year debater at the University of Michigan and assistant coach for Westminster. In the real world, my majors are history and political science, with a concentration in American politics and public opinion. In high school, I debated for four years at St. John’s (MA). I competed for a small team without coaches in high school; I now debate for a large squad with a diverse research base. I dabbled in critiques and squirrely affs during my early years; now I read a big stick aff and my most common 2NRs are politics or the Oil DA. In the past few years, I have worked for Forest Hills Central (MI), Dexter (MI), St. John’s, and GDS.

New philosophy summary (April 2011):

The short version - here’s 10 things you should keep in mind: **1 – Framing decides debates**. Strategic vision wins ballots; technical skill is useful (and important to avoid game-changing drops) but not always sufficient. Is conclusiveness or empirical backing more important for deciding uniqueness debates? Should only existential risks matter in impact calculus? Do your best to decide these questions for me – I cannot emphasize this enough. **2 -- Research is my single favorite aspect of debate.** Quality of evidence (which includes its support for claims, the qualifications of its author(s), and so on) is vital. I am very likely to read evidence after debates, even if I do not initially think a debate is close. This is not license to shadow-extend every card by cite and hope I agree with your assertions – displaying knowledge of your evidence to guide my comparative reading is essential for resolving my decision in your favor. **3 –** **What do I like?** I like bold strategies (impact turns and case-specific PICs come to mind; if you rock somebody on advantage impact turns and keep the debate relatively clean, you'll probably get good points). I enjoy disad-case and counterplan-disad debates (who doesn't?). **4 --** **T is part of the game**. **Don't let it become the weak link in your skill set.** Some broad guidelines for debating T in front of me: (1) "Aff innovation" is not objectively synonymous with "good debate." Negatives do not necessarily have a presumptive right to certain arguments. Both of these impacts can and should be contested. (2) I tend to agree that predictable limits are more valuable than ground, at least in the abstract - meaningful and balanced ground is frequently a function of limits. (3) Just because it's the TOC doesn't mean I won't vote on T-substantial - it's your choice to read an aff that does nothing. **6 -- Conditionality**: On the whole, it’s probably good. ‘Condo bad’ isn’t unwinnable for the aff, and negative teams have not been very good at theory, so it’s not impossible to win. Framing impacts in the 1AR ("depth of education comes first", "fairness outweighs logic) is a big winner. If the 2NR wants me to look at the status quo as well as the counterplan (if the counterplan links to politics, etc), say so explicitly. I'm skeptical of counter-interpretations on either side: three conditional CPs are probably not worse than two. **7 -- Cheap shot theory – not your best bet:** I try to find reasons not to vote on these arguments (e.g. "new affs bad" as the seventh argument on conditionality, or "multiple perms bad" as a two-second argument somewhere). Theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Well-developed (even if generally dumb) arguments escape this category.  **8 –Kritiks:** I generally think they have to be a reason the plan is a bad idea. If you’ve got another way I should think about the debate, make it explicit and early. I don't viscerally dislike Kritiks, I just debate and research policy arguments because I think they're more interesting. It's been a while since I read philosophy in my free time, so my author/argument-specific knowledge is iffy. --Persuasive aff arguments: Answering "root cause" claims, questioning the coherence of broad systemic theories ('capitalism', 'power', etc), well-explained permutations that address each negative link argument, any impact turn strategy --Persuasive neg arguments: Link examples embedded in Aff evidence or cross-x, evidence and explanation for the argument that the K "turns the case" --Less persuasive aff arguments: Ad hom author indicts ("Baudrillard is an idiot" "Zizek is wrong about some stuff"), the "perm double bind" without specific explanation or at least an attempt to acknowledge what the K says --Less persuasive neg arguments: "our framework is " **9 –Nontraditional/other**: After a couple years of experience, I have decided I am not a great judge for these debates. I try to be impartial, but I’m too trigger-happy on framework and the perm. That said, if you’re aff with me in the back, you should probably affirm (at least) the direction of the resolution, and need to be up-front about what you’re willing to defend. If you’re neg, make answering the permutation your top priority. On both sides, controlling the role of the ballot is the easiest way to pick me up. **10 --In the absence of any argument to the contrary, I assume the following**: zero risk of a DA is possible but unlikely; extinction is the worst possible impact; I should try to save as many lives as possible. If you don’t have impact defense and you don’t have another way to frame the debate, I may be too tempted to pull the trigger on ‘try or die.’
 * 5 –** **Literature is important for counterplan legitimacy**. I think you need to have a solvency advocate for counterplans. This literature standard guides a lot of my thinking on what counterplans are and aren’t good for debate; I don’t like consultation, but I do like quid-pro-quo condition counterplans (mostly). The States counterplan is sometimes relevant, but not the way debaters cheat with it. International actor counterplans are questionable, but I can't remember voting on it.

Paperless stuff: As a paperless debater, I try to be as patient and understanding as possible about mistakes and jumping time. If this gets bad, I'll shift to a prep model where I stop the clock after you save the document to your flash drive. Jury's still out.

Notes about CX: I pay attention. The person asking the question gets to decide whether an answer is sufficient, not the person answering. Good CXs get speaker point bonuses. Bad or boring CXs generally don't cost speaker points; they're a lost opportunity, but not worth penalizing unless you're obnoxious. A well-executed and applied "reverse pit of doom" is worth a couple of extra decimal points.

I’ll probably update this with some frequency. If you have any questions about my philosophy or want to contact me for other reasons, my email is kyle.deming7@gmail.com. I’m also willing to provide more feedback for rounds and suggestions for improvement. --kd, 10/20/2010

11.4.09 [Appendix: Boring, seemingly obvious rules that can’t be broken: (1) My job is to enforce time limits, render a timely decision in favor of one team, assign ranks and speaker points, and provide a post-round critique including a reason for my decision. (2) I have yet to encounter a reasonably well-articulated position (assuming it doesn’t force me to violate that untouchable first rule – e.g., double-win theory) to which I would refuse to listen or flow. I don’t see that changing soon. (3) Honesty is a must. Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal (timers or otherwise), don't clip cards. In the absence of proof to the contrary, I believe all debaters are fundamentally good people. Don’t change that impression.]