Advancement of debate

logical progression of ideas

supporting argument with sources

interaction with and connected to other chamber members

proper decorum

proper use of parliamentary procedure

knowledge of laws, and governmental procedures

I did PF throughout high school

tl;dr:be organized, be clear, and speak well

super important stuff:

•collapse. I hate overcrowded flows, they make the round a pain for everyone involved. try to have just 1-3 major pieces of offense you're gonna try to go for by FF

•weigh. If you don't and your opponent does, you'll probably lose. tell me what arguments are important, why they're important, and why you're winning them. and don't just bring this up at the end of FF--your weighing can start as early as rebuttal.

•signpost and follow your roadmaps. messy rounds are bad rounds

•don't extend through ink. I'll know, you'll know, and your opponents will know. it's waste of time.

major points:

•don't run plans/advocacies unless you run them in a way that proves they're an inherent advantage of your side

•I prefer that second rebuttal is split, but I'm ok with new defense on the second team's case being done in second summary

•if you think an arg is squirrely, I probably agree. don't waste too much time on these but make sure you respond

•please date your cards (or at least have dates available), it makes the round more fair

Speaker points:

I won't drop points below a 25 unless you've really messed up (rudeness, remarkably poor speaking, etc). outright racism/sexism/homophobia/etc will result in very, very low speaker points. you'll also lose the round for those and I'll go to tab about it. otherwise, just be compelling. your humor and rhetoric are just as important as your evidence and logic

Evidence:

I'll check evidence if I need it to make my decision, if one team tells me to, or if I think it sounds sketchy. severely misrepresented evidence will lose you the round and will probably get you in trouble with tab

ask me any other questions you may have, I'm happy to answer anything!

I debated PF and LD in high school.

I value logical arguments that are supported by evidence. To me, logic is the most important. I also value debate decorum and respectfulness. I enjoy voting issues, flow the round and look for arguments dropped, and overall place emphasis on values and value criterions to make my decision. Logical arguments and a solid defense of your case is how i award points! Thx!

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements