Combs,+Steven

Steve Combs


 * PROTIP:** Do not run theory in front of me. I don't like to evaluate it, I do not evaluate it well, so if you run theory and your opponent engages, I will attempt to evaluate, but will ultimately decide the round on wither or not I believe the argument that is triggering the theory is abusive.


 * Facts**:

I debated for Ankeny High from Ankeny Iowa for four years, graduating in 2007. My home style was LD, though I had debated PF and Congress. Went to Iowa State to study Philosophy, which sadly has no Forensics program. I have judged/chaperoned for Ankeny at local and national level tournaments, Judging LD, PF, and Congress in everything from novice night's to the ToC.

After taking a year off I was sucked back into judging for various Des Moines school districts and tournaments in PF, LD, and Congress in 2013-14 school year.

Email Address: m1rrari0@gmail.com


 * Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm**:


 * Speed**: I generally discourage the use of speed in front of me. Ill let you know once that you are going to fast for me, then I will simply stop flowing.


 * Speaker Points:** My approach to speaker points comes from my belief that they are to be rewarded to the better speaker. Regardless of the performance of the argument in the round, it is more about how one presents oneself and ones argument. Be respectful, sign posting, avoiding squirreliness in cross ex, confidence, knowledge of your case, acting professional within the round, and NOT stealing time from the judge or your opponents are contributing factors to determining if you can achieve a 30.


 * Theory**: Firstly, I would suggest not going for theory in front of me, I really dislike voting on it, I am not very good at evaluating theory arguments. I do not buy the time skew argument, and will auto drop anyone that runs it in front me. Period. I view theory as a largely DEFENSIVE tool. I know that this fact will probably get me struck but just because your opponent does something slightly abusive isn't a reason for me to vote you up, its just a reason to ignore the abusive argument(s). If its an abusive definition, say their definition is abusive and provide me a counter definition that provides for even or more even ground.Typically when I end up having to evaluate theory, everyone except the person I vote for leaves the room feeling bad and upset.

As a general rule, I find myself looking toward the arguments that a debater clearly links back into the framework, and weighing the impacts that come off of such arguments. LD is defined as a value debate, so make sure any argument you have links back into the standards you set for the round, or the standards your opponent suggests. Also I will on weigh arguments that are on **__MY__** flow, rapid firing three different responses to three different arguments at different places on the flow, im going to miss one and if your opponent doesnt bring it back up, one of them probably never happened. Its why I discourage speed

As a tip to help you out, you make my job much easier and thus make me more friendly to you're perspective if you give me clear concise voting issues in the NR and AR2.

A. This clearly defines to me what arguments you find to be most important within the round B. Gives you a chance to remind me of the impacts coming off of the voting issues, and a chance to remind me of the reason you win

If there is anything I didn't cover within this paradigm and you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before the round starts, however asking me questions that the answer is posted on this page, it will negatively impact speaker points.