Calhoun,+Zac

I debated at Holliday High School in Texas from 2000 to 2004 in what can only be called the traditional style. I did IE's in college and drifted away from the debate community until a couple of years ago. I now teach and coach at Pflugerville High School, and although I understand debate I’ve spent a long enough time away from it that some key concepts are very new to me.

I've been fortunate enough, however, to see a good deal of TOC-level competition and have picked up a lot in a small amount of time about where debate has gone. The most important thing to know about me is that because I haven't used most of the common terminology/strategies in a round myself, it takes me a bit longer to internalize it than your average national circuit judge. To use a math analogy, it's the difference between being TOLD how to solve an equation and actually DOING it with consistency. I'll understand what you're saying, but it won't be as second-nature to me as it is to you.

I'm pretty good with speed, but take into account a few things: a) I haven't personally debated or done flowing drills in close to ten years, b) pause for the briefest of split seconds before and after author names, and c) sheer rate of delivery doesn't mess me up as much as clarity; I’ll yell “clear” when I need to, but only a few times.
 * __ SPEED __**** : **

I find theory pretty fun, and I don't think it destroys education. However, I do strive to avoid a debater winning theory simply because his or her opponent isn't used to debating it. Therefore, I'm sympathetic to any well-reasoned arguments against a shell, even if it's not the most technically proficient. I also like aff RVIs and CX as checks on less-than-thoughtful theory shells.
 * __ THEORY __** :

Although I don’t objectively dislike the K debate, I’ve rarely heard a K with truly compelling links and alternatives. Feel free to prove me wrong, but slow down if your cards are super verbose.
 * __ KRITIKS __**** : **

Picking apart internal links tends to persuade me against DAs, but I do think a burden on the aff is to start this process during CX. I also find “extinction first” to be easy to beat with well-written evidence specific to the DA.
 * __ DISADS __**** : **

- making it look easy - being creative/conversational in the way you deliver in-round impacts - making your opponent look as ignorant as possible while still coming off as likeable as possible (takes serious skill)
 * __ GENERAL THINGS I APPRECIATE __**** : **

- claiming drops/concessions that didn't happen - extending when merely extending isn't sufficient to answer an important argument (this especially applies to aff rebuttals…pick and choose) - being disrespectful to anyone in the room (before or during the round)
 * __ GENERAL THINGS I DISLIKE __**** : **

Since I don’t think speaks are an ideal tiebreaker, I’ll award them based on how likely I think you to win the tournament. As someone with a heavy IE background, passion and swagger are important.
 * __ SPEAKS __** :