Woolums,+Vince

I debated for Iowa City High 1989-1993 on the prisons, space, and homelessness topics. I won lots of rounds and speaker awards. I didn't debate in college, because life happened otherwise. I work a full time project management job in the aerospace industry, enjoy bicycling and gardening, and am a family guy.
 * Background:**

Since 2009 I've been the Director of Debate at Iowa City High. I hold BA degrees in English and Political Science and am working on finishing a MBA. I follow foreign and domestic politics and policies closely. Having returned to debate after a long absence, it's great to be a part of the community; however, I do think the time away from debate provided me some critical distance to view this activity beyond its win/loss stats and speaker-point focus. It's my steadfast belief that policy debate is just __one__ part of a lifelong commitment to academic learning, and that the skills honed in competitive debate prepare us all differently for our unique adventures through life.

Rounds are judged from a mix of //tabula rasa//, stock issues, and policymaking paradigms. __I much prefer policymaking to any other paradigm. Moreover, it's my firmly held belief that policy debate needs a plan text and that Affirmative teams should employ the USFG or subsidiary agencies as actors.__ My preferences are: case debate, counterplan/disad debate, and solvency mechanism debate. __My least favorite rounds to judge are: any form of kritik debate including narratives, personal advocacy, and/or projects; and, if it helps assist in your selection of judge strikes, then I would rather not judge these types of debates__. I demand in-round decorum. Rudeness and ad hominem fallacy will **NOT** be tolerated. Do not militarize your identity to the point you exclude others; this is not the purpose of debate. I suppose I'm in favor of 'truth over tech', though you need to win the technical side of debates with truthful arguments.
 * Before the Round:**

You should ask me for clarifications of this entire judge philosophy AND ask any other questions before the round. Absent your questions, I will assume that you have read and understood this philosophy. If you have to ask me "do you take prep for flashing speeches" anytime after the start of the 1AC, well, just don't do that. If you ask me during 1AC CX "hey do you allow tag team CX" expect your points to suffer. Always ask questions before the round begins. __Always__.

In-round debate trumps my preconceived notions on debate, K's, debate theory, framework, and the topic in general (etc etc) provided you make your case or arguments compelling and don't make me do any of the work on the flow for you.
 * The RFD:**

All things considered, I will render a decision on __any__ well-developed argument. If you have questions about the RFD, please ask them politely.


 * 29+ speaks:**
 * you probably blew my mind somehow;
 * you did NOT exaggerate, powertag, under-highlight your evidence, including its warrants;
 * you made cogent link, internal link, and impact calculus arguments;
 * you properly refuted the nexus questions in the round;
 * you were really easy to flow, with great intonation, inflection, and cadence;
 * you focused on speaking coherently instead of technically;
 * you told a compelling story using well-honed rhetorical devices and true arguments, presented persuasively;
 * you were polite yet assertive in CX and during your speeches.


 * 28-29 speaks:**
 * you did a pretty good job answering all the arguments, but you may have dropped some stuff;
 * you were too fast or too unintelligible, and didn't adapt to me flowing you;
 * you didn't do as good a job analyzing arguments as you could have;
 * you exaggerated your evidence beyond what the author intended, or beyond the warrants you read;
 * you didn't persuade me, you were snarky in CX, etc.


 * 25-27 speaks:**
 * you did a poor job refuting arguments, or you dropped whole arguments;
 * you were unintelligible;
 * you didn't analyze the arguments or perform a cogent impact calculus;
 * you used //ad hominem// arguments or were aggressive either in your speech or CX.


 * 0-25 speaks**
 * you did something I found particularly offensive (racism, sexism, other bigotries);
 * you used fraudulent evidence;
 * you clipped cards;
 * you forfeit or left the debate for any of your own personal reasons.

In my opinion, we are engaged in policy debate and not LD, public forum, or philosophy class; hence, policy debate topics -- that are written to assist theoretical policymakers in making critical policy decisions for the United States -- provide the basis for our arguments, which requires analysis geared toward solving problems and not simply rejecting them.
 * K's:**

That said, I'm fine with kritik and framework debates as long as you articulate the finer points of your argument -- like alternative solvency -- in a way that makes sense without relying on debate jargon. For example, if you stand up in a 1NC, read an IR Fem shell, but then can't answer any questions about it in cross-ex, I will not be impressed. If you are taking a theoretical or philosophical/critical approach to the topic, then you'd better be prepared to explain your position in clear, non-debate terms.

Regurgitating debate jargon on complex academic topics that are (at best) tangential to substantive policy debates does not demonstrate to me that you grasp the underlying issues. Instead, it tells me you only want to win debates and have selected an esoteric theoretical position in order to do so.

I prefer you ask and answer your own questions. I prefer politeness during cross ex.
 * CX:**

I prefer not voting on theory; however, if the abuse is egregious, or the claim particularly compelling, then I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for "abusiveness" claims.
 * Theory:**

Personally, I prefer that when you say "I'm ready" that you are ACTUALLY ready to deliver your speech. Waiting for the awkward flash-drive-shuffle is annoying to everyone. That said, I understand that in the world of paperless debate it's sometimes necessary. Or, you could trade email addresses...
 * Flash drives:**

I'm fine with speed. I flow on a laptop. Generally, I'm okay with most things speech-related provided I can audibly differentiate your tags, cards, cites, and analytic arguments. The speech act, for all our outside the round research and preparations, is the purpose of debate. If I need you to speak more clearly, enunciate, slow down, or emphasize your tags, I will call out for it verbally in-round. You get one call out, and after that your partner needs to be watching me to make sure I'm capturing what you want me to capture.
 * Speed:**

I don't like when a team interferes with their opponents speech or prep by requesting evidence and/or asking for your flash drive back, or by whispering to your teammate so loudly I can't hear the speaker, or by throwing tubs/expandos/laptop cords around, etc. If these are a problem, then your speaker points will assuredly suffer.
 * Pet peeves:**

Good luck to all.