Schmitz,+Mark

Mark Schmitz -- University of Kansas

Updated November 2012

Assistant Coach @ Shawnee Mission East

I pay very close attention to Cross Examination, but only until the 3 minutes is up. You can keep asking questions, but I won't pay any more attention. That applies even to things such as "status of the cp/k?" - I may *hear* it, but I won't grant you their answer.

__Framework__– The role of my ballot is central to these debates. What does voting AFF mean? What is the role of the NEG in these debates? I think that AFFs that do not directly defend the topic should have a sustainable interpretation of the resolution that includes their AFF. You should also probably have an offensive reason your form of scholarship is good, and can only be accessed on the AFF.

__Topicality__ – I usually default to competing interpretations. AFFs should define what "reasonability" means in the context of the topicality debate. Teams that don't provide topical versions of the AFF might be a little harder pressed to win my ballot.

__Theory__ - I think I stand with most other judges in saying these are not my favorite types of debate, that said, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. These debates start and end at the interpretations. I approach these the exact same way I do framework and topicality - the theory debate is about setting up a norm for use in all future debates. The less arbitrary your interpretation, the better.

__Case__ - I love case debates. Good case debate will be reflected positively on your speaker points. If you drop an advantage in the 1nc, I treat it the same as a dropped disad in the 2AC.

__Counterplans__ – I like them. A lot. That said: I do not think USFG-based agent CPs (XO, Courts, etc.) are competitive unless the plan text specifies an agent. PICs out of topic mandated words ("The," "federal government," etc) are stupid. PICs out of non-topic mandated words are good, and usually quite strategic. I generally see kicking the CP for you (NEG) as intervention, so unless I've been told a standard for kicking it (win the perm, a solvency deficit, a DA to the CP, etc.), I will evaluate CP+NB vs the AFF/Perm.

__Disads__ – I like them a lot. Case specific DAs are more enjoyable to watch than generic DAs like politics. "Disad turns and outweighs the AFF" is a beautiful phrase.

__Kritiks__ - Kritiks are often very strategic tools to win debates. The more specific, the better. If you go for a Kritik, there are certain questions you need to answer in the 2NR, or you might have a hard time getting my ballot. Who does the alternative? Why is this instance key? What does the world of the alternative look like? What does your impact //mean//? I am compelled by the argument that I should weigh the AFF, so NEG teams would do well to tailor their Kritik to that world. If you are indicting their epistemology, you should have specific examples - I am usually not compelled by generic, sweeping claims like "their epistemology is flawed" without any specific case debate/warrants. That applies equally to methodology and ontology.

__Paperless__ - If you are paperless, I'd like you to include me in the jump/email chain before your speech starts. I'll waive this if one team is paperless and the other is not.

This seems to be the part of the philosophy people actually care about, so I'm putting it at the bottom in the hopes you read the rest of my philosophy as well. __Things that improve them__: -demonstrating specific knowledge -even/if statements -explanatory clarity -humor -being nice -taking risks -line-by-line debating
 * __Speaker Points__**

__Things that will hurt them__: -being rude -being unclear -stealing prep -purposely refusing to debate the line-by-line

Finally, please clean up after yourself. As a community, we rely on our hosts, and they will quickly vanish if we treat their facilities with disdain.