Last changed on
Fri April 5, 2024 at 12:19 PM CDT
Caddo Magnet 22'
Tulane 26'
email chain: ryanw9700@gmail.com
I did policy debate in high school for all four years. I did Zoom debate for a while, if possible, please have cameras on.
Tech over truth
Speak as fast as you want
More clash = better debate
Please do impact calculus
Good Line by Line will win you the round
Evidence quality matter a lot. I do read evidence after the round, and I see too often debaters power tagging entire arguments and getting a way with it. If the argument is dumb call it out. If you want me to read certain pieces of evidence after the round say it in speeches.
I read a variety of K and Policy oriented arguments in high school. I'm familiar with most critical literature bases. I do not have a strong preference towards either argument style.
What I like to see:
1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details
2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully
3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round
What I do not like:
1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies
2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it
1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details
2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully
3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round
What I do not like:
1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies
2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it
Topicality - go for it. If you are 2n, it should be all 5 minutes of the 2nr.
After hearing a lot of T debates on the NATO topic, I do not wanna hear T in the 2NR. This is not my preferred negative argument on the topic. Please feel free to read it though
Kritks: I love a good K debate. Links to the affirmative are the most persuasive to me. Other links are fine if explained properly. If you are not going for the alternative, you should win framework. If the framework page gets too messy don't expect me to do the work for you. I have a base level understanding of most literature bases. I read a K aff my senior year of HS. If you know your K then there should be no problem winning.
Framework: Debate is a game, but that is up to interpretation. Fairness is an impact. Clash is more persuasive to me. I think affirmative teams should be creative when responding to FW. I am more open to different models of debate than most judges. The 2NR shouldn't be five minutes of fairness comes before their arguments. Answer what the other team is saying.
I like K v. K debates. I can't promise I will flow perfectly in these rounds, so rebuttal speeches that clearly clarify the role of judge and ballot are crucial.
CP: I love a good CP debate. I can be convinced by any theory here. Unless it's condo its most likely a reason to reject the arg not the team.
DA: The best of the debates are with good impact calculus and resolved with good impact cal. Yes on impact turns. Link debate work is nice.
Speaker Points:
I give higher speaks than average. 28.6 is what I expect out of most rounds. If you are unclear and give bad, uncreative arguments, your speaker points will reflect that.
LD
- I end up judging lots of LD rounds. I have never done LD only judged rounds on it. I am best suited for LARP and K args. Anything outside of that I am probably not the best judge for you. I can handle a theory debate, buture.
Read my policy paradigm
1) LARP
2) Kritiks
3) Phil
4) Theory
5) Trixs
RVIs are dumb. I don't like voting on them.
just do impact cal
PF
Based on my experience, this event is a pain to judge. Please do not paraphrase. Please engage with each others arguments. Please do not send out a card doc if its just a bunch of quotes from NYT and Vox.
