Steffan,+Mike

This is my 8th year coaching debate. I currently coach Washburn High School in Minnesota. I have judged ~30 rounds on the Oceans topic. I eventually just stopped counting.


 * tl;dr for my judging:**

1) Slower speakers tend to be more successful in front of me. I process debates slower than others as I am flowing. Debaters who are able to effectively slow down give me the time and conditions to understand the arguments in the round. __This isn't to say you have to speak "slow" relative to normal, day-to-day conversation.__ Just that I'm probably not the best judge for spread speed.

2) I tend to prefer critical debates over policy debates. While I don't like that there has to be a perceived split between the two, I do find myself enjoying judging critical debates and should be upfront with myself and anyone reading this. I have voted for framework plenty of times this year against critical affs, however.

3) Cards are just some of the tools in the toolbox of things debaters can use to win my ballot. I don't automatically assign them an exalted status.

4) You do you, but I have to do me as well. For example, I'm probably not the best judge for you if your negative strategy relies on tricky counterplan mechs.

5) I guess you could say I'm truth>tech unless the tech is so overwhelming that it also controls the truth. Heh.


 * specifics**

DAs: I have a little secret: I really love disads that rely on the turns case debate. The more specific, the better. Obviously that is ridiculously difficult to do on a topic as large as Oceans.

Counterplans: I read them sparingly as a debater. I don't have extensive personal experience with counterplan theory, tricky CPs, etc., so I may not be the best judge for you. This does not mean that thorough explanation of CP solvency relative to the aff is useless in front of me. Think about it like this - you know those judges that say they like K debate but need super warranted explanation? That's me, but for counterplans.

Kritiks: Cool beans. While I enjoy these debates, don't assume that I know all the lit. (Because I really don't) Most of my experience has been with Foucault, Cap/Marx, and Irigaray. I'll now separate the rest of this discussion to sides:

Affirmative responding to Ks: (in order of priority) I find 1) Aff impacts = DAs to alt, 2) Link turn vs. link and 3) perm interaction with the linkturn/link debate to be the most persuasive aff args for me. Link turn vs. Link is especially important to me when the affirmative is nontopical.

Negative reading Ks: (in order of priority) I find 1) Identifying links that the aff link turns / perm can't resolve, 2) how your impacts interact with affirmative truth claims 3) if you run an alt - how the alt either resolves an impact external to the aff that is larger, or how it resolves the aff impx - otherwise why you don't need an alt (method k)

Theory: I really don't like having to vote on these kinds of debates. I do recognize instances where the abuse was egregious (many condo worlds, no solvency advocate for tricky shit, perf con, etc) so please use your own best judgment here.

Topicality: I feel that this topic makes it pretty easy to be topical if you want to go that route. I find myself this year defaulting to reasonability here.

Topicality/FW against nontopical affirmation: Personally I feel that aff impact turns against USFG FWs are just true. I've also voted for Framework against nontopical affs. Truth doesn't ALWAYS outweigh technical skills in a debate round, even if that's generally how I approach debate. But I can easily say without worry that I have a lower threshold for nontopical affirmation vs FW.

Speaker Point Guide:

26 and below: You were mean / rude / a jerk in the round and should seriously consider how you treat other debaters.

26.1-27.4: Your speaking was below what I consider to be "average" for your division.

27.5-9: Your speaking was at or very slightly above average for your division.

28.0-4: Above average, but still has good room to improve

28.5: Darn good speech. missed out on some strategic opportunities.

29: Damn. Good. Speech.

29.5: I've only given 3 of these out in my 8 years. Extremely rare. bAsically a perfect speech.

30: I've never given a 30 and I don't think I will any time soon.