Willey,+Dan

__Experience:__ I debated for four years at Robbinsdale Cooper High School. I am a state champion and ranked at nationals. I'm also a VBI alum. I'm not currently coaching for any school. I have judged a few rounds here and there at summer camps and tournaments over the last few years. I have not yet judged the current December 2010 resolution. I'm currently a junior at Brandeis University studying Politics, Economics and Philosophy.

__Decision Paradigm:__ I am willing to vote on anything as long as you provide warrant for your arguments. I want you to tell me how I should make my decision and why. I generally prefer the traditional value/criterion setup and consider it a default, meaning that any deviation from it needs to be explained and justified; I need some other mechanism to weigh the round and you need to provide that for me. Debaters sticking with this format still need to be prepared to justify it if the other debater challenges it, but the burden is really on whoever is deviating from it. I will listen to a priori/pre-standards debate as long as you justify it. Telling me that it's pre-standards is not enough to prove that it actually is. Everything needs to be linked back to something, whether that's a priori logic or a criterion; the case needs to be cohesive. Other than that, argue whatever you want.

__Speed:__ I'm generally not a huge fan of speed. That being said, I debated in high school for all four years, so I am more than familiar with speed and can keep up if you choose to use it. If you choose to use speed, I don't want to see it being used solely as a strategy. If you still have time left after blazing through a speech, I will dock points. If you're just throwing out bad arguments to spread your opponent, I will dock points. Speed should only be used if it is necessary to strengthen your arguments. You also need to remain clear. If I don't hear the argument because you're mumbling it won't make its way onto the flow and then I'm not going to vote for it. If your opponent wants to look at your case during cross examination, that's great but I'm not going to ask for it if I couldn't make out what you were saying.

__Speaker Points:__ I award speaker points based mostly on effective argumentation (the better your arguments, the more points). Delivery is also a secondary consideration. If you are particularly persuasive either in your rhetoric or tone, I am willing to give an extra point or two. Speed could hurt your cause here if you become unclear with your arguments. I assume 27 points to be average and usually move up or down from here. I have never had reason to give below a 24, but if something sufficiently egregious were to happen, I could potentially go below this.

__Miscellaneous:__ I'm willing to listen to theory, but I think it should be used reasonably. If your opponent isn't really destroying the value of debate as an activity, then don't accuse them of it. That being said, if your opponent is actually abusive, I have no problem with you calling them out on it and am more than willing to vote on it. I also have no problem with the critique or the straight neg if you justify it within the round.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round.