Young,+Kelly

Wayne State University Director of Forensics Years Coaching: 12 Number of Tournaments this Year: 8 Rounds on Topic: 40ish**
 * Kelly Young


 * __GENERAL ISSUES:__** I will repeat this later: I am a bit old school here, but what is most important to me is that you make an argument, warrant it well and make good comparative claims against opposing arguments and I will probably vote for the argument. I’m not terribly micro-flow-centric or a slave to the “must have a card or it’s not an argument” mindset. I enjoy good smart arguments and savvy strategy choices. Mass dumping of cards on a question don’t impressive me nearly as much as smart distinctions supported with one or two well qualified and warranted pieces of evidence.

I__s Kelly an anti-K hack or not?__ My past judge philosophies have just horribly confused people on my stance on critical arguments. I will try to clarify. I am open to critical arguments and vote for them frequently. Especially on the negative, I find them to be an important strategic option. However, I like "good" critique debate with specific links and good impact discussion. On the affirmative, critical advantages are fine with me along with critical impact turns or critiques of Disads. I think a critical affirmative should have to defend the resolution at a minimum, preferably with a plan text. If there’s no plan, I tend to give more weight to jurisdictional and topicality objections. __Performance Debates__: However, I am not particularly fond of “performance” debates because half the time I am unsure what the team’s argument is and because I’m unsure what exactly constitutes argument within many performative frameworks. For instance, these debates often raise the question, “who’s performance is best or more authentic?” without ANY way to answer this question. Thus, the performance debate often becomes either a tie or a race to agree more with the other team that leaves me with no guidance on how to evaluate it. I also don't think just because you read a narrative or show a cartoon or movie first in the debate warrants an aff ballot. __Critical Issues for me on K debates__: I find it highly important that the specific links to the K, internal links and the warrants for voting for the K’ing team be clearly articulated, earlier the better. I detest having to read 1-2 page long nebulous cards labeled a link to “discover” a link for you. I also don’t understand unwarranted claims like, “the K takes out solvency”, “the K solves the case”, “ontology first”, “the aff leads to discursive/ontological violence” without explanation. If the K mandates an alternative world or framework, I think it’s legit to perm them to test the link. I also believe that fiat is an illusory concept, but that doesn’t mean that the aff’s advocacy suddenly disappears. I can weigh case advocacy vs. the kritik. __Misc:__ Although Wayne State debaters are entirely too prone to run Zizek, I'm not a terribly big fan of him. I've read several of his works, have worked with this theories in some research, and obviously I have knowledge of his arguments due to coaching my teams. However, psychoanalysis just isn't my bag. I'll vote for the argument, just don't mistake yourself into thinking that I HAVE to hear this argument. I hear it too often already and actually find a good ol' Relations or Politics debate a refreshing change :)
 * CRITICAL ARGUMENTS**:

As said above: make an argument and warrant it well and I will probably vote for the argument. I am most comfortable as a policy-making judge, but can be social critic/real person if necessary. I am not tabula rosa; my understanding of the topic and the evidence affects my evaluations. I generally do not vote for cheap shot arguments and will punish strategies that widely employ them. Also, I do not vote for a dropped line-by-line argument simply because it was dropped; the argument has to have some impact in the debate for it to matter to me.
 * Decision-Making Paradigm:**

Generally. I see most theory debates playing out as a wash in the debate. I also don’t flow theory debate very well or understand a lot of team’s distinctions between offense and defense. I hate “Cheap shot” theory where a blip is labeled an independent voter in the middle of the flow. If you want me to vote on theory, develop the argument. Clear articulation of the violation is a must. Also, I am not impressed with 10-15 bad theory arguments. I am more persuaded by fewer standards with more development. Good examples of what the team’s violation allows for are preferred over abstract theory.
 * Theory:**

I like the argument, but I’m not a T hack. Clear articulation of violations is important. I am more persuaded by actual in-round abuse than potential. I’m not a big fan of “competing interpretations,” but have voted on it. The more specific examples of ground loss you can present, the better. If the aff spends 16 seconds on T in the 1AR, it’s probably a bad idea in front of me. Topicality is always a voter, never a reverse voter. I also strongly believe that voting for T is NOT an endorsement of genocide, violence, etc. Topicality always comes before critical arguments, unless you are critiquing the interpretation.
 * Topicality:**

I don’t mind most CPs. I give more leeway to the neg on defending a disposition rather than conditional CP. I am not the biggest fan of consultation CPs or process CPs and tend to give a lot of leeway to the aff on abuse claims. I have a very high threshold of proof for utopian cps, but I have voted for them if defended well. I prefer CP debate to focus more on perms, solvency deficits, disads/net-benefits than 5-6 minutes of theory on CP. I don’t care if cp is topical, as long as it competes. I also think the neg has an inherent right to fiat, so “no neg fiat” doesn’t fly with me. Ultimately, I think the last rebuttals should spend substantial time comparing the risk of the net-benefits of the CP/Aff vs a risk of solvency deficits. Additionally, the affirmative has the burden to explain how their permutation solves/avoids the net-benefits and how they operate. Simply saying “do both” and then magically explaining that that means something somewhat different in the 2AR doesn’t
 * Counterplans**

I find that I am reading fewer and fewer cards after rounds. I might call for a ton of cards to verify that they make the warrants that you claim from them or to steal cites, but I do not want to do a ton of reading for additional warrants or arguments. If you think a card is important, you should be doing the work to explain its meaning and relevance during the debate. I find it really difficult to wade through cards when little work has been done to tell me how to evaluate these cards. I really dislike reconstructing the round for you. I prefer that you make the evidence comparisons and draw the warrants out of the cards for me. I tend to weigh cards heavily based on how well they match your characterization of them and the internal warrants of the card. Also, I evaluate whether your arguments can access the evidence that you claim; if not, I don’t give the evidence much weight. For instance, if you go for perm solvency evidence that your plan/perm cannot access, I wont find it very compelling to me.
 * Evidence:**

Hate rude debate and will drop points quickly for it. I am not the fastest flow in the community. Tag team CX is fine. I believe that presence, delivery and skills of persuasion are important…many times the team that does the best job framing the debate rhetorically will win the round. **I have some hearing issues and I find it difficult to hear speakers who sit down behind a laptop. Please stand or find a way to speak to me around the computer.** Please don’t sit with your back to me because it makes it easier to use the laptop. If you have cards only in electronic form, it’s you are obligated to give the other team your laptop to look at the cards. T violations that are in electronic form should be written out prior to the round to give to the other team.
 * Style & Tech Issues:**