Hampton,+Jyleesa

__Debate Experience -__ 4 years debating at Shawnee Mission South HS in Kansas; 5 years debating in college at KU; Currently coaching college debate at KU; Currently coaching hs debate at The Barstow school; Been Coaching HS since 2011 including: Shawnee Mission South, Blue Valley North, Juan Diego and Niles North; Taught/teach at debate camps including: JDI, GDI, CNDI, DDI... Rounds Judged on this topic: a lot

__Speed and Clarity__ - I do not understand what is this fascination with trying to read faster than you can clearly go. Start slower and build up to your top speed. Clarity should always be your main focus over speed. If you are unclear I will say clear. If you are unclear a second time I will say clear. If you are unclear after that I will just stop flowing you.

__Card Clipping__ - Don’t do it. If you do and I’m following along or there is a challenge and you are found to be card clipping you get a 0 and auto loss.

__Topicality__- Affs should be T. I love a good T debate.That being said I tend to default to competing interps on T. Reasonability seems silly and would require me to disregard a large majority of the T proper debate. Good T debates for me consist of: 1- Clear violation of the Aff in terms of your interpretation 2- Impact out Topicality! I think the best way to frame this is what world is created by their counter interpretation/aff and your interpretation.

__Counterplans__- I think CPs probably need to be both functionally and textually competitive although I will listen to an arg as to why they shouldn't be. I think Consult and Condition CPs are a little sketchy for this reason so I am probably more sympathetic to those types of theory arguments that indict Consult and Condition CPs. I think Advantage CPs are completely underutilized and am I fan of this strategy. I'm cool with P.I.C.s and enjoy __meaningful__ word P.I.C.s. I would rather not hear you don't read your "the" or "should" P.I.C. I think the CP should some specific solvency cards - especially in a states or courts cp debate. In general I also think Affs should understand CPs can have multiple net benefits and be vigilant about DAs read on case or something other than (politics/elections) being the net ben.

__The K__- Kritik's are the style of argument that I am very familiar with.. I have a reasonably extensive knowledge of the lit base for most kritiks read in high school and collegiate policy debate. Just because I may have read your authors or am familar with the arguments you are reading does not mean you don't have to work to clearly explain the argument (link, alt and impact). Although I prefer to judge a K debate do not assume I will do all the work for you. I am particularly intrigued by kritiks that indict the representations within the 1ac. I think the best Ks though focus upon an important premise of the aff's solvency mechanism or the topic mechanism. I find in highschool debate there is a startling lack of discussion of the alternative. You need to DESCRIBE the world of the alternative and what it means in terms of the Aff. Can the aff happen in the world of the alt? Does the state exist? What about the alternative method solves the impacts of 1AC? These are important questions you need to have answers to. Floating P.I.C.s are fine and can be strategic in instances where the K doesn't require total negation. In addition to the K proper the neg/aff should advance some kinds of framing arguments. Explain to me what my ballot signals/doesn't signal in terms of the args and the round itself. I would also offer a bit of advice to both teams - be smart about what arguments are defensive and what are offensive.

__Framework__- I am not a fan of framework args that say Ks are cheating and should not be allowed but you could win that Aff FW arg in front of me. As a rule I am generally skeptic that silencing/excluding out the other team entirely is good or a reason you should win. Outside of that, I think parametrics or Resolutionality arguments against K Affs can be persuasive. These types of framing arguments framework debates to me are usually about two things: whether or not a team is able to engage the aff and what is adv/disads to the model of debate the aff defends. For K teams that don't have a plan, or are clearly untopical, treat that debate more like an impact debate about the importance of the topic/advocacy texts, and less a theory debate.

__Disads__- Not much to say about DA's except the more specific the better. I will vote on generic DAs I think the debate gets more complex when you have specific DAs to the process/mechanism of the aff. I think sometimes debaters rely on really good cards to win the debate rather that good spin and that's a shame. Last thing the DA needs to tell a story - 2NR should make it explicit what the story is and how turns/outweighs case.

__Theory__- Generally I think condo is good. Given that, other theory args are probably a reason to reject the arg, not the team. I've voted on theory but I prefer that you go for a substantive arguments. I do NOT like Spec arguments at all.