Please add me in your email chains: caseywilliam16@gmail.com

I debated for Green Valley High School for two years doing policy debate, you can call me Will. I have debated in policy for two years and i understand most arguments, if you read a K you will need to explain it pretty well because i'm not that well versed in it but i will vote on it. i really enjoy heated cross ex but that doesn't mean to be rude. i love arguments that make me laugh, if you can both make the other team's argument look incoherent as well as do it in a funny way i will give you more speaker points. I'm pretty good with speed just be clear and change your speaking style when you read taglines so i can catch them. if you aren't clear i will just say clear. i will stop flowing if i have no idea what you're saying. I'm a big fan of creative arguments and analytics that point out the logical flaws. i value good analytics over OK cards so if its a bad argument with tons of cards just answer it with a good analytic. i will vote on anything if you argue it well enough. Also don't say anything offensive in round or i will dock your speaker points, just try to be a nice individual.

I did policy for 2 years. tldr: I'm straightforward as a judge and don't have any outlandish standards I will hold you to.

You are fine reading whatever you are the most comfortable with in front of me. I think that there can be value in most any type of debate and will do my best to properly adjudicate who won no matter what style the debaters may choose, whether that be through policy arguments or kritikal arguments. I don't think there are any teams that shouldn't pref me based off of the arguments they prefer to read.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

Email chain: donaldtfagan[at]gmail[dot]com

Other things:

I am likely to type the entirety of the debate in an Excel sheet.

I lean Tech > Truth

No new 2AR args. If I can't find the arg in the 1AR, I'm not voting on it.

If you're unclear, I will call clear a reasonable amount of times. If you're still unclear after that, I will stop flowing until you clear up. Slowing down a bit on analytics and making a distinction once you reach tags/authors also doesn't hurt.

I think dropped arguments are true arguments, but make sure your extensions still contain properly warranted analysis. If your argument is incomplete/undeveloped/low quality or very blippy, don't expect me to vote on it.

I like line by line line.

Generic engagement with the kritik is not preferred.

Framework/Topicality against the K:

Go for it. I need you to articulate why your fairness/predictability/limits/education/etc. matters and why your model of debate is better at producing these things. I think that fairness can be an impact, but I also think it is strategic to use fairness as an internal link to education. You still obviously must win a reason why fairness is good and why it is more important than what the aff is claiming is important.

K Affs:

Sure. Just make sure there's sufficient explanation of your arguments and that your articulations are clear - don't make rampant assertions without warrants or assume I know what you're talking about even if it seems apparent that I'm familiar with your literature.

Ks:

Go for it. Make sure your links are contextualized to the affirmative. Also, same thing goes for explanation as described in the K aff portion above.

DAs/Advantages:

Make sure to use impact calc. I'd like for there to be comparative analysis between the impacts and a well developed, logical story. That means strong work on the link and internal link levels of your DA.

CPs:

Make sure counterplans are competitive. I'd prefer to only hear cp theory args when there is an obvious or reasonable obfuscation of aff ground.

Speaks:

I will be about normal with speaks in most cases. Formalities aren't important to me, but if you do something egregious such as deciding to read blatantly racist/sexist/similar args or are excessively terrible in some other way I will give you low speaks and likely drop you as well. I probably won't be flowing cross-ex, but it will influence your speaks.

29.5+ - One of the best speakers I expect to see all year.

29.0-29.4 - Among the better debaters at this tourney, had an impressive debate with no glaring errors.

28.7-28.9 - You were proficient/pretty good.

28.0-28.6 - You still need some work to get to the next level.

Significantly below 28.0 - something went horribly wrong.

Bumps - make me laugh and I'll have a better subconscious perception of you and probably give you a slight bump in speaks. However, if you're not funny don't try to be because if I'm forced to cringe it's an uncomfortable situation for everybody.

Theory:

Conditionality - I probably lean neg on the question of conditionality. However, if you legitimately feel that there has been a violation of your ability to properly compete with the negative then I may feel the same way and will treat your args like any other. If the neg is only reading one conditional argument or something of the sort, I am unlikely to consider that a significant violation of aff ground.