Thompson,+Will

High School: Debated 4 Years for Charles Page High School in Oklahoma

College: Current Sophomore at the University of Oklahoma, 1 Year of College Debate Thus Far

Overview I view debate through an offense-defense paradigm. I am fine with spreading. I am very familiar with "circuit" style debate. I try to intervene as little as possible, and thus refer to myself as "Tabula Rasa." Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to abandon all my biases, and so the below information is an attempt to let you know what those biases are.

Topicality/Theory/Framework I am very comfortable voting on topicality. I don't have a default preference for either competing interpretations or reasonability - I have no preference as to whether or not there has to be "actual abuse" in order to vote on topicality. It's up to you to determine my views on that subject in each round (this is the one exception to the default "offense-defense" paradigm outlined above; a team that wins reasonability can, in my mind, thereafter win the topicality debate merely with decisive defense against the other team's standards). You can be extremely untopical and win topicality, or extremely topical and lose on topicality. Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, unless strong arguments to the contrary are made in the constructive speeches. Don't be annoying and say that perms are severence when they aren't. Competing interpretations and reasonability can also apply during theory arguments. I will be happy to listen to affs that completely ignore the topic, and I will also be happy to listen to framework arguments that force every aff to defend USFG implementation. If the negative wants to win framework against non-topical affs, they need to quantify the magnitude of the link to their standards, and also frame their offense in terms of the other team's offense (i.e., I have no idea how to compare education and striated space without your instruction). I will vote on framework against negative kritiks, but teams rarely make such framework arguments compellingly.

Disadvantages I love them, and went for them all the time throughout high school. If anything, this probably means I'll hold you to a higher standard when you run them - this is especially true of the politics DA. You should have carded answers to common 2ac args if you want to be able to take a given DA into the block. Do impact calculus and make "turns case" args - it's really important.

Counterplans Generally fine. Theory is underutilized by affirmative teams, since a large number of CP's are cheating. Affs need to put a substantial 2ar/1ar time investment into theory on CP's if they want to win it, though. Simply saying "perm" does not constitute an extension of a permutation - there must be a warrant as to why the perm solves. I prefer fewer, well-warranted perms to larger numbers of blippy perms.

Kritiks I didn't go for them much, but I feel comfortable evaluating debates that involve them. Compare your offense to the other team's offense (i.e., how does the hyperreal interact with the lack) and you should be good. Explain how your alternative functions and PLEASE don't be jargon-y; even if I AM familiar with some of the jargon, it's better to make your arguments clear in the first place. If the other team doesn't understand what's going on, it's a safe bet that I don't, either. I don't find links of omission to be compelling.

Perms The phrase "perm do both" does not constitute a reason for me to vote aff, even if the perm is dropped by the negative team. A perm MUST be accompanied by an explanation of its net-beneficiality in order for me to evaluate it in the first place. Absent such explanation, the "perm" does not rise to the standard of an "argument."

Other Stuff I keep a close flow of the round, and I expect you to as well. I will dock you an average of one speaker point if you don't seem to flow.

I rarely, if ever, call for cards after the round. It is not my job to read your evidence, but rather your job to explain it to me. I don't care how good your evidence is if you haven't analyzed and applied it well.

I rarely give speaker points lower than a 27 or higher than a 29. Points higher than 29 are reserved for especially phenomenal, final-round quality debaters. Points lower than 27 and higher than 26 are reserved for debaters who don't seem to either try or care about their performance. Points lower than 26 are reserved for the following cases: if you are excessively rude or mean, especially to young debaters; if you cheat (steal prep, clip cards); if you use blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, or adultist slurs (note that "slurs" are distinct from phrases like "you guys," and the metaphorical use of the word "see" - using this language is probably still bad, and the opposing team should argue as much, but I won't default to lowering your speaks in such scenarios); and if you argue with me about the decision. You can certainly ask questions about my decision, but if you choose to argue with me, I feel the need to set a precedent. Too many good judges have stopped judging the activity and/or been intimidated into voting for particularly outspoken teams because of such situations.