Henderson,+Travis

Name: Henderson, Travis School Affiliation: Iowa City West High School Debated For: West Des Moines Valley High School Years in Debate: 12 Number of Rounds on this Topic: 20+


 * NEWLY ADDED/EDITED TO PHILOSOPHY AS OF 12/15/13 -**
 * Updated years in debate
 * Edited Style section, Theory section, Counterplan section, Politics section, and Criticism section
 * Added sections on Code of Professionalism, Ethics Violations, and Speaker Points
 * A few deletions and some grammar/spelling edits


 * ABOUT ME**: I debated for Valley High School in West Des Moines from 2002-2006.I am currently Assistant Debate Coach at Iowa City West High.


 * GENERAL OVERVIEW:** My general philosophy is that debate is a game with significant educational merit. This means that I believe teams should be given room to innovate within reasonable standards (racism good, time cube, omega point, etc. will never receive my ballot – be reasonable, if you think your argument is anti-educational, you probably shouldn't run it in front of me). Debate is both a speech and a research activity. This means that I will first consider the technical merit of the arguments made on my flow. However, in close debates, the strength of evidence can act as a tie-breaker. On the flip side of this, on issues where one team is clearly technically ahead, spin on evidence can win an argument even if the evidence itself is poor.


 * CODE OF PROFESSIONALISM**: I wish I didn't have to include this next paragraph in my philosophy, but it seems a rising class of arguments mandates that it be said. Please remember that in addition to doing my best to be an objective critic of the arguments and evidence presented in the debate, to be devoid of ideology, and to be open-minded to argumentative innovation, I am also an educator and I have ethical and legal obligations to my team, my school, my profession, and myself. In fact, the license I hold which indicates that I am qualified to be responsible for and to educate students comes with legally binding standards of professionalism. These standards include an expectation that I will ensure students are safe and that I am not engaged in activities that could be construed as immoral, obscene, or sexual in nature. Thus, arguments that promote the actual use of violence, that are lewd or explicitly sexual, or that otherwise, by my being the adult in the room allowing and watching them, put me in a professionally indefensible position, will not be tolerated. I will stop these rounds, sign my ballot against the team promoting this behavior, and will leave the room. I will also intervene if I believe the environment of the debate has become hostile, obscene, or dangerous.


 * ETHICS VIOLATIONS:** An ethics violation occurs with a serious breech of debate norm or academic standard undermines the integrity of the activity. I put this in my philosophy because I want to make clear that my judging will, where applicable, reflect standards and norms in the community. Where norms are uncrystalized in the community, this section should help you to understand how I personally would resolve the problem. Again, I feel strongly about the benefits of transparency, so I choose to include this section.

THINGS WHICH ARE DEFINITELY ETHICS VIOLATIONS
 * 1) Card clipping - Card clipping is an ethics violation, and it's a serious concern because it misrepresents the arguments you have made in your speech. If the other team catches you clipping cards and can successfully prove you have been clipping cards, I will drop you on face. If I catch you clipping cards but the other team does not point it out, I will punish you myself by lowering your speaker points below 27.
 * 2) Evidence fabrication - Evidence fabrication is a severe form of academic dishonesty. If it is proven that you have fabricated evidence, I will drop you on face. I will also notify the tab room, colleagues, and will post to your wiki so that others may know of the issue.
 * 3) Out-of-context - Cutting and presenting an author's argument out-of-context is a form of academic dishonesty, and is therefore severe. If you are caught presenting evidence out-of-context, you will be dropped.

THINGS WHICH ARE PROBLEMATIC BUT DO NOT CROSS THE THRESHOLD OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS
 * 1) Evidence which can no longer be accessed - I understand that you may sometimes read cards which you found on a search engine, database, journal, archive, or online news source which no longer exists or where the source no longer houses the original information. Nonetheless, the ability to access information in an open and transparent way is necessary for successful refutation by opposing teams. If the opposing team can prove that the evidence is no longer accessible, I will ignore the evidence and all relating arguments in my decision making.
 * 2) Failure to flash read cards - I realize that you sometimes read evidence last minute that did not make it into your original speech document. However, access to your cards is important for card comparison and refutation. I will expect you to flash the card, and I will not deduct anyone's prep time.

THINGS WHICH ARE KIND OF IFFY BUT NEITHER EXPLICITLY PROBLEMATIC NOR ETHICS VIOLATIONS
 * 1) Not posting to the wiki - Open access to information is a positive force in the debate community. It has equalized structural biases towards large schools and has overall resulted in a higher caliber of research-based debate, which is a powerful portable skill in today's world. Nonetheless, it is not a rule nor an ethical expectation. I will neither vote a team down nor deduct their speaker points for failure to post to the wiki. Disclosure enforcement is the discretion of the tournament hosts and the tab room.
 * 2) Refusal to disclose arguments pre-round - Again, I echo what I said about open access to information, but again, I recognize that this is not a rule. I will neither vote a team down nor deduct their speaker points for failure to participate in pre-round disclosure.


 * SPEAKER POINTS:** I have come to realize that my speaker points are now a low outlier and that points have inflated over what I was used to giving. So, I have adjusted and rationalized my scale to reflect changing norms. For transparency, please see the below scale:
 * 30-29.7 - One of the best debaters I have ever seen at the high school varsity level.
 * 29.6-29.2 - You should be towards the top of the top speakers.
 * 29.4-29.0 - You should be in the middle or bottom of the top speakers.
 * 28.9-28.5 - You should be in elimination rounds at this tournament.
 * 28.4-28.0 - I would expect you to have some chance of breaking at this tournament, though you will likely not be reflected among the top speakers.
 * 27.9-27.5 - I would not expect you to break at this tournament.
 * 27.5-27.0 - I would suggest improvement of basic debate skills in order to compete at the level required to be successful in varsity debate.
 * Below 27 - You have done something rude, offensive, or have otherwise violated the tenets I outlined in the section on Code of Professionalism.


 * FLASHING:** I do not count flashing as prep time. When the flash drive is ready to leave your computer and be handed to the other team, prep time will end.


 * STYLE:** Though I am not against speed, for the sake of full transparency, I am increasingly finding that I am most persuaded by teams that go only somewhat fast but are eloquent, smart, and efficient. I prefer well-structured speeches and think line-by-line makes for better debates. I prefer well-warranted arguments and gladly ignore arguments that are only claims, even if they are dropped by the opposing team. I especially adore when debaters engage in meta-framing, "even-if" statements, and deep evidence and argument comparison.


 * TOPICALITY:** I have a higher threshold for voting on T than most, and I don't particularly enjoy topicality debates. Limits for me should about what interpretation allows the best cases, and why these cases should be preferred. Predictability probably outweighs ground. Finally, while fairness is highly important, education also matters, and fairness is not always the only internal link to education. I do not vote on reverse voting issues on topicality debates.


 * POLITICS**: Comparisons of evidence on all levels will make this debate easier for me to resolve. I generally dislike card wars and prefer card comparisons. In uniqueness wars, I generally find myself reading cards to try to sniff out the "truth" of what spin is better reflected in the general consensus regarding reporting about the political climate. While I think the offense/defense paradigm is often applicable, in areas where significant amounts of defense are being played on the link, where internal links seem to be weak or missing, and where non-uniques seem to make the link stories or the overall disad untrue, I have no problem voting against politics despite a lack of offense.


 * DISADS:** Specificity makes disad debates more interesting, but there is nothing wrong with running generic disads either.


 * COUNTERPLANS:** A well researched, well-conceived PIC is one of my favorite debates to judge. PICs should probably be textually and functionally competitive, but you're free to change my mind. Object fiat is bad. Affirmatives should quantify solvency deficits, e.g. tell me why taking an extra six months to solve your aff leads to a failure to resolve the advantage impact, or negative sufficiency framing becomes more compelling. The solvency advocate standard is generally compelling and becomes increasingly compelling the more unpredictable/procedural/trite the counterplan. In regards to QPQ, I'm 50/50. It's totally debatable in front of me.


 * THEORY:** Generally, I dislike theory debates and prefer substantive debate over theory debate. I have no problem ignoring blippy theory arguments even if they were dropped. Conditionality is good. I usually think the counterplan, the status quo, and whatever criticism you want to run is sufficient negative flexibility.


 * CRITICISM:** Honestly, I have recently been feeling a sort of internal rebellion against the criticism, which I attribute to two realities: 1) It's gotten out of hand in many cases, and 2) My team isn't particularly critical, so I have lost touch with the literature base and with innovations in critical argumentation.

More often than not, I'll find myself weighing the aff's impacts and its solvency against the neg's criticism and alt solvency. I enjoy framework debates that are critique specific. The example I always use when people ask is that I'd prefer to see an ontology versus action or ethics debate over a prefiat versus postfiat debate, which I find trite and irrelevant. Negatives should apply the generic theories in K impact evidence to make specific arguments against affirmative impacts, or I will default to the specificity of the affirmative's internal link and solvency claims.


 * PERFORMANCE:** Affirmatives should defend a plan that meets the mandates of the resolution. __This is a rule of debate paramount to speech order and time constraints.__ I have seen some performance teams manage this burden creatively. I have also seen some performance teams ignore this burden. The former class of teams can win my ballot. The latter class cannot. Performance teams that do not grapple with BOTH the substantive and theoretical objections to their frameworks will lose.