Weeks,+David

David Weeks Strikes: Oak Mountain (affiliation), Highland Park [TX], Saint Martin’s Episcopal I debated on the national circuit for 3 years and graduated in 2006. As such, I'm familiar with most arguments that you'll probably be inclined to run. If you have any questions, don't ask me what my paradigm is. Ask me about whatever you're worried about before the round. Generally, I try to minimize "intervention." To me, all that means is that I'd rather defer to what occurs in the round to make my decision, rather than my presuppositions and more subjective, personal understandings of things. I generally avoid throwing out arguments because I think they are dumb (note that an “argument” is a claim, warrant, and impact. I may or may not ignore complete assertions.), and I am open to whatever you want to run in front of me. However, my speaker point distribution often reflects my personal impressions of your arguments. I enter rounds assuming that the value criterion is the evaluative tool I’ll be using. I’m open to any and all alternative frameworks, but I don’t presuppose any specific order in which I should evaluate them. That is to say, if you run an argument like fairness or discourse, you need to tell me why I should evaluate it before the value criteria. If there are multiple levels being presented in the round, tell me in what order I should evaluate them. Correspondingly, if you expect me to vote on an argument, label it a VOTER. This means that you HAVE to tell me why theory or your burden is an on face reason to pull the trigger. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE EXPLICIT VOTING ISSUES. Not to say that I'll drop you if you don't label voters, but your speaks may improve marginally. Not to mention that it's much less likely that I'll miss something that you thought was very important. Giving voters doesn't mean reminding me of the arguments you're winning. It means rearticulating the claim and warrant efficiently, and developing how I evaluate the argument in terms of the criterial debate, opponents voters, etc. I think debaters are gravitating away from explaining the exact function of their arguments. I think you'll like the results much more if you label turns appropriately and explain how arguments interact with each other. If something functions before the standard, make that very clear. Explicit impacts back to the rhetoric of the criterion are also indispensable. In terms of resolution interpretations, I am finding that I have to intervene more and more on this level because debaters are not weighing out their competing frameworks. In the event of competing drops on this level with no comparison, I default to the first one presented in the round. Just be smart and tell me why your interpretation of the resolution is preferable to your opponents. Providing standards like competitive equity / predictability helps make this a less subjective process. You obviously should weigh your framework against the other one just as much as you weigh competing impacts to the criterion. Not weighing your impacts to the standard is not a good idea in front of me. Please weigh. I implore you. As far as theory goes, I really hate bad theory. I think bad theory is often insufficiently warranted and extremely generic. Ill vote for this kind of theory, but not happily. Please give me an in round abuse/violation or a good reason why potential abuse matters. Sometimes, I think a developed theory debate with warrants/explanation as to what I do with uneducational/unfair/whatever arguments can be interesting. When answering theory, tell me why it's irrelevant or unwarranted. Saying "this is stupid" wont suffice. Kritiks need alternatives or good arguments why you don't need one. I like Ks with a semblance of a link, an impact, and an alternative. Kritiks that undermine assumptions in the aff case are perfectly okay, but I’d prefer (you don’t have to do this; I just say this in the interests of full disclosure) to see link-impact-alternative Ks applied as takeouts of AC assumptions secondarily. I don't really like ellipses. If you have ellipses, bring the full card/article to the round. You wouldn't want to make me listen to ellipses meta-debates, now would you? If you cant bother to find the full card and your opponent warrants a theory argument that I should reject arguments with ellipses, you better make it 100% clear why they're losing that theory debate or go for something without ellipses. I won’t auto-drop you on ellipses. I just am highly predisposed to vote for offensive theory positions about ellipses (not unshakably so; I might buy takeouts/turns on the standard or voter. But you may not like the results if the theory debate was unclear.) As far as really complicated arguments go, I don't have an argumentative bias against critical arguments. On the other hand, I don't spend every waking hour reading Heidegger. Slow down for really dense arguments and rhetoric. Generally, I'd say you run crazy arguments at you own risk, but I can discern an honest attempt at being understandable, as compared to intentionally confusing arguments. I won’t automatically ignore arguments whose warrants I do not understand. However, I will listen to theory args about why I shouldn’t. As long as I understand the function of the argument, the arg will only go away if you lose the arg or you lose theory on it. That said, I don’t like unwarranted arguments. I may not ignore it automatically, but I reserve the right to. Absent any offense linking back to a standard or arguments to the contrary, I presume negative. I also think most aff presumption args are terrible and have never presumed aff. I think it’s conceivable, but very rarely does either side completely lack offense. 1. Be clear by enunciating words. 2. Avoid a whiny monotone. 3. Start off slower and build up speed as the speech progresses. 4. Slow down for author names, things you really want me to flow (key warrants, etc.), and 5. indicate when a card ends and analytics begin. I don't care how, but I don't want to be sitting there wondering when Cross in 98 is gonna shut up. I am very serious about all of this. Not doing any one of #1-5 will suck for you. try to have fun, by the way.
 * The importance of roadmapping and signposting is proportional to the complexity and diversity of the round. So if there’s theory, T, the standards, and case debate signposting becomes key.
 * Use jargon to enhance the clarity of your argument/its function, not to obfuscate it.
 * I like substantive debate. Substantive doesn’t necessarily mean about the topic. On the other hand, I think debate not about the topic is (mildly so) more prone to being less substantive.
 * I ignore completely new arguments in the 2ar/2nr.
 * Im fine with speed. Ill yell "slow" if I cant handle it, but I don't think it'll be an issue. However, if you go fast, you NEED to do a few things:
 * I’ll call for a piece the evidence if I believe my not flowing something was my fault.
 * Good slow debate is ALWAYS better than unclear/blippy fast debate.
 * I don’t have problems with a big picture approach, but I prefer it when there is still some focus on the line-by-line argumentation.
 * I don’t care if you sit during cross ex, wear a tie or hat, etc.
 * Don’t bother shaking my hand. Your hands are likely to be sweaty or dirty by the end of the round, and I won’t reward your shaking my hand, so you only stand to lose by performing this unhygienic and vestigial ritual.
 * Two things I will not listen to: double-wins and infinite prep time. I think they unfairly disadvantage individuals that have no influence over the round.
 * I know debate rounds can get frustrating sometimes. Try not to yell or be mean. Just try to think about how you come off to others. I love funny rounds. I don't like rounds that make people cry.
 * I understand that “else I would be able to sign the ballot for myself” is a common (albeit extremely crappy) voter for fairness. However, if you actually try to sign the ballot for me for some reason or another, I will probably give you a 20. I will also fight you away and probably drop you. Reference it all you want, but don’t try it.