Williams,+Jack

University of Oklahoma (class of 2021) Bartlesville High School (class of 2017) Last updated: 9/26 for Edmond North jackawilliams13@gmail.com

=Overview= My background is in traditional LD. That doesn't mean I'm not open to voting for more progressive arguments, but I have a lot less experience in them. If you expect me to vote for them, you're going to need to explain them. Email me for comments about the round or really anything. If you have a chain, include me on it.

If I'm tired or hungry, I get bad at flowing. Make the round easy for me to flow.

Things I Hate
- Framework is not a voter. You will lose speaks - Don't run team cases. If I hear one, I'll drop you speaker points - I don't think value debates in general are a good use of time. Sometimes it's really important to the round, but usually, morality > justice debates have no bearing on the round and are pretty boring. Unless it has some impact on the criterion debate or the way I should evaluate the round, value debates are ultimately meaningless. - If you don't bring up something in the 1AR, it can't be a voter in the 2AR. If your opponent dropped something, just saying "extend Baudrillard" is not enough. Weigh often, and clarify impacts - People who spread for the sake of spreading. If you're reading 15 responses, they're probably all mediocre. I generally prefer fewer, higher quality cards to a dump of bad ones. - Don't just tell me "the Johnson card turns the Jones card". You may know your case and cards really well, but I don't. If you do this, I have to take time to go back and look for what each of those cards said, and you have to hope I flowed what they said correctly, and that I understand how one turns the other. Don't make that assumption, and don't make me pause to go back and figure out all of that stuff. Just remind me briefly of what each card says.

Things I Like
- Good framework debate - Good utilization of CX. I think that's often the most important parts of rounds - don't waste it. - Sign-posting. If I don't know what argument you're talking about, I can't flow it - Weighing. Weigh often, and early. I want you to make my job easy. - Arguments that are accessible. If you're debating a traditional debater and go for high-level theory, I'm going to be annoyed, which will make you annoyed when you see the speaker points

=Specific Arguments:=

Phil
I love phil. That being said, if you don't understand it, don't go for it. I prefer coherent arguments over buzzwords. If it's something weird, explain it to me. Don't expect me to know your esoteric phil off the bat. Generally, I believe phil is underutilized.

Plan Affs
I generally dislike policy style aff's they work for the topic. They work on this topic (compulsory national service). (This is due to how time constraints work in LD, and how much I love framework. I generally feel that it's hard to do both well, but I've seen really good rounds where the plan was necessary and helpful)

Counterplans
If you're running a CP, tell me it's a counterplan. Don't try to hide it. Same rules apply for accessibility Don't be abusive. If you win on a cheating CP, you'll likely lose speaker points. Counterplans must be exclusive and functionally competitive. Condo is an uphill battle.

DA's
Make them applicable to the case. Don't expect me to draw your links for you.

Theory
I'm a fan in general, default to drop the arg Don't be abusive, same rules apply for accessibility I don't have a great understanding of high-level theory, so slow down and explain it.

K
Generally my least favorite style of debating because so many abuse them. If you do it well, I'll buy it. Explain and impact more than you think you need to. I'm not super well-versed on K's in general.