Simoneaux,+William

About Me: I debated for three years for Jesuit High School in New Orleans, LA, whose debaters I currently assist in coaching. I went to TOC my senior year. I’m currently assisting Jesuit High School. I haven’t judged any rounds yet on the ’09 November/December topic.

PARADIGM: In terms of generic paradigms I guess I’m a truth tester: that is, I view the resolution as a statement to be proven true or false.

Furthermore, I could be persuaded to “compare worlds” (or any other way of evaluating arguments) as long as there’s sufficient reason(s) given why I should.

The easiest way to win my ballot is win your standard (or some framework for weighing arguments) and win offense to it. Also, I like debaters who weigh proficiently and compare offense, as well those who explain the function of each argument. This is also a good way to get high speaks.

SKEPTICISM/CRITICAL ARGUMENTATION: I have no problem voting on these arguments as long as I understand them. As I said before I won’t vote on something I don’t understand. I will admit though I didn’t run these types of arguments as a debater for the most part, so don’t expect me to be incredibly familiar or impressed by the latest, trendy crit lit.

As a forewarning, skepticism arguments that say things like “truth doesn’t exist” or “you can never affirm anything” I don’t hold in particularly high regard. I have no problem voting on them, I just feel that arguments that can be recycled for every topic aren’t particularly interesting and don’t make for “fun” rounds. I’ll try my best not to let that effect your speaks, but if you’re really concerned about getting high speaks you’re better off running something topic specific.

THEORY: There needs to be in round abuse for me to vote unless you really well warrant why potential abuse means the ballot. I view fairness as a voter for the most part, so fairness isn’t a voter dumps don’t do much to persuade me. That said, I like theory more when its run to eliminate arguments rather than to win a round (i.e. “reject the argument not the debater”). If you run multiple T shells with no real abuse to win rounds I can’t promise high speaks.

SPEED: As far as speed goes I can handle most anything. I ask that you slow down on tags and author names and maybe even pause slightly when transitioning to a new argument. This is probably to your advantage as if I miss something or don’t have one of your arguments flowed I’m probably not likely to vote on it. Most importantly though be clear. If I can’t flow you I’ll probably yell “clear” once then just visibly stop flowing. Also its helpful if you’re running really complex arguments with dense, complex rhetoric to not go top speed because its easier for me to vote for arguments I understand; Ultimately though, its up to you.

SIGNPOST!!! It’s not my job to know where you are unless you tell me.

Other than that I don’t think there’s anything particularly relevant for this section. Whether you sit or stand, what you wear, how much you click or twirl your pen, etc. it’s all good with me. I just ask that you be respectful to your opponent and myself.

If you have any other questions, just ask.