Bridwell,+Caleb

= Bridwell, Caleb =

tl;dr at bottom

= My Debate Experience: = I am debating for my thirdyear at Liberty University, I completed my novice year, a year of JV, and am now in open. I have judged several tournaments, and am relatively used to judging. It's something I enjoy doing so you do not have to worry about me ignoring you during a speech, sleeping in a round, being distracted, etc.

I am very easy to read when debating normally, I will shake my head if i think an argument is stupid, or I will nod if I think an argument is good. I will look quizzical if I don't understand something. = My Debate Philosophy: =

I tend to be rather flow-centric unless told otherwise, if a team tells me not to flow then I won't. I will listen to arguments on things like flowing bad, etc. I am fine with these, and try to be as objective as possible. However, you must be willing to defend things like this pretty well. I am pretty good at flowing, I have no problem flowing first round college teams. However, if you are unclear I will give you 2 warnings, and after that I will not flow until you are more clear. I emphasize clarity above speed on speaker points, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I rarely find myself calling for cards, mainly because I think debate is made to be a communicative/educational program. If you cannot extend the warrants of your own evidence, I will not do it for you after the round. At most I will call for it to check and make sure you are correct if there is a heated debate over the warrants.

I have not had this happen, but I have heard of it: clipping cards. If this happens in front of me the team who does it will receive an automatic 0 speaker points and lose. Immediately. However, if you are going to call another team out for it you MUST be recording the round and prove it to me. If you try to call another team out on it and are wrong, you will receive an automatic 0 and lose. Sorry, I just do not tolerate cheating.

Also, I default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. This is not an uphill battle to make be view the framework from ontology first/whatever else, just know you have to make that argument.

General Arguments:
Policy Affs: I enjoy a good, well warranted policy round. I like a good counterplan/disad combo for the neg, or a nice big stick heg aff. I also like techy affs that can go either policy or K during the 2ac if needed. I am fine with these, and I am fine with things like generic advantages: warming, middle east war, etc. I am also fine with more creative advantages: aliens, space travel, etc. All of these are fine, I will consider the probability for both equally. However, I feel like it leaves a lot of room open for the other team to read walls of evidence, and I will weigh their evidence just as much. I will 10 out of 10 times choose 1 piece of well warranted impact/link/internal link/whatever evidence over a terrible impact/link/internal link/whatever wall read against it. You have to explain your warrants in the rebuttals if you want me to give it full weight. Also, I really like impact turn debates on either side. I think they are just fun debates, and pretty educational.

Disads: love good disad/case debates and think creative things can be done via the impact calc and internal link debate. For the aff, I recommend pushing them really hard on the internal link debate, because most internal link ev does NOT say what the neg claims. However, if you let them get away with a terrible internal link card or only say "this card is bad, dont count it" I will give it 100% weight. Those claims are not arguments, talk about what the card does not account for. Also, for politics/elections disads I find arguments about things like "sooo you think millions of people will change their vote JUST because we do X?" to be persuasive and rhetorically powerful, and also things like "so obama needs how many political capitals to get this done? how many does he need to send a fruit basket?" and jokes like that to be funny, and will help your speaks while mitigating their link/internal link. However, unless the neg derps REALLY hard on answering this, it will probably not get you a 100% disad take out. I also find logical policy maker/bottom of the docket arguments useful (though also not 100% effective).

CPs and their permutations: I love CPs, I probably go for counterplans more often than anything else. However, you have to have a net benefit for me to vote on it. Even if it is just like, "we solve better" or "1% risk of better solvency" stuff like that. However, I think that PIC's and stuff are easy to get a solvency deficit against by the aff. So be sure to be ready for a good solvency debate. Also, I like external net benefits (politics, trade-off, etc) but I really like internal net benefits. These are good because they are usually harder for the aff to win a link turn to in front of me, and I think they are easier to guard against a perm. Nice to leverage against the aff. Be careful on the perm debate, it is a big deal.

K's and K affs: I am fine with both, and think they are really fun rounds. I have read a decent amount on some Ks and have watched a lot of good debates on other Ks. In addition to this, I talk about Ks a lot with my friends who debate them. Here are K's I am familiar with: Nietzsche, Queer theory, Quare, Blackness/Whiteness/Anti-blackness/whatever (pessimistic or optimistic), Cap, Neo-lib (yes there is a nuanced difference), Heidegger/eco-managerialism/technology bad, Baudrillard, redness/natives, Spanos/imperialism, Speciesism/Anthro, Feminism, and others. These are just all of them that come to mind immediately. I am also perfectly fine with performance from either side, and am not usually persuaded by "wrong forum" type args from either side. I think it is very very very important to win the framework/impact calc debate against a K team. I'm fine with policy vs K debates as well. If you are a K team it is usually pretty important to win the root-cause/alt solvency debate if you want to win the round. Ks are probably my favorite rounds to judge, but I will NOT vote for you just for running a K. Don't even think that. I vote for the winner. Do know, if you are running a K aff (performance or not) and you do not have a plan text, know that I will be wary of your permutation args. If you don't read a plan text I default to making you defend every word of your 1ac, including if the Neg PICs out of one word of your tags/whatever. I default to thinking of those kinds of 1ac's as 9 minutes of plan text unless told otherwise, and you have to win that debate to win a perm. Don't worry though, just win why your specific method is good, i.e. in a Wilderson vs Quare round there is a lot of agreement in some areas, but you have to win why your methodology is key. Also, I'm fine with reps Ks, i.e. the F word K. Ontological, methodological, epidemiological, representational, all fine. Also, if you are a K aff don't be afraid of the neg running FW against you, i will vote for them if they win it, but that is an equal playing ground. It isn't uphill either way.

Theory/Topicality: I am fine with theory and Topicality, but know my threshold is higher on some things. For example, I will vote on condo if you win it. Even if they only have 1 conditional CP I will vote on condo if they don't answer it sufficiently in the block. However, 2Ns: this does not mean you have to spend like 3 minutes on condo. usually a 1:1 ratio is enough on time/argument. However, if the neg runs 2 Ks and a CP, I tend to find that pretty abusive against the aff, and you are going to need to do a bit more work on condo than normal. Not to say it is unwinnable, but that is an uphill battle. 2 conditional advocacies is usually fine in front of me, just don't derp on the flow. On counterplan theory, usually you won't win agent counterplans bad/international fiat bad/PICs/whatever in front of me, but if the other team drops it do not be afraid to go all in for it. That is a big deal. Also, you must impact these arguments, I will not do it for you. You have to put a voter/explain why education and fairness are important or I probably wont give you the win. Also, on Topicality the aff should ALWAYS read a competing interpretation, or else it is an uphill battle. I am fine with you running FW against a k (aff or neg) but you are much more likely to get me to reject the arg rather than reject the team. Also, if you are going for condo on the aff or T on the neg, 90% of the time that should be all six minutes of your last rebuttal.

Speaker points: First, know there is a fine line between being funny and sarcastic, and being a douche. If you go too far and act like a douche, your speaker points will reflect it. I like some sarcasm/wit but don't go too far. It will be visible on my face if you go too far. If you begin shouting at the other team or name calling or something else stupid don't be surprised when I tell you to stop being a dick and give you a 20. Also, humor in cross-ex and stuff will help you with speaks, look at me during CX and make sure I can see your face. Try to make me feel like you are having a conversation with me during CX. If that involves pulling up a chair and sitting in front of/beside me go for it. I think CX is very important to speaks and to your ethos.

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at  29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are one of the best debaters I've seen that year.


 * TL;DR:** I try my best to be a blank slate. Tend to view debate as a game, can be persuaded otherwise. Am very familiar with Ks, but will by no means rep out for them. If you are a pretty cool person, your speaks reflect it. Theory: 1:1 time ratio is probably enough to answer. Policy, I love policy debate, started off as strictly a policy debater. Debate is a fun activity, I love doing it and can't imagine my life without it. Remind me why I love it by giving me a good round, get good speaks and a good win.