Welter,+Tony

= = I debated for all four years of high school. I debated two years in LD and two years in Policy. I would consider myself more of an LD judge than a policy judge; however, I currently coach both LD and Policy at Sioux Falls Lincoln. As of 2014-15, I am entering my third year of coaching.

Short version for both policy and LD: Claims need warrants.

I’m fine with voting on any argument so long as 2 conditions are met: a) the argument is not used to degrade others in the round for no reason, b) there is a warrant that supports said argument.

I will be more likely to vote for an argument if: a) the argument is impacted out and explained in relation to other arguments/impacts in the round, b) the argument is explained in a way that shows how it fits in a certain framework and how it’s the superior argument within that framework.

I will be less likely to vote on an argument if: a) there’s a chance that I didn’t hear it how you wanted me to (sign-posting and slowing down on tags will minimize this chance) b) it’s a new issue in a rebuttal, especially the 2AR. Going all-in on something like a double-turn or a new theory voter in the 2AR is incredibly risky (generally not strategic) business because I’m forced to hold you to a substantially higher burden of proof because the other team has no chance to respond.

Long version for Policy:

Read the short version too.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the fastest I’ve seen, I can handle about an 8 on a good day. Tags should be slower than card text in order to distinguish when a new tag is being read. If there’s something that you especially want me to hear or remember before other things, slow down and speak louder while you cover that bit—we’ll both be happier. If you’re going through some philosophically dense analysis, you’ll need to slow down a bit so that I know what argument you’re making. Err on the side of caution.

Theory: I have a low threshold for theory. I will vote on potential abuse unless someone tells me not to. I will default to competing interpretations unless told not to. The way that I weigh theory arguments will depend on how I’m told to look at the argument during the round, but it doesn’t take much to get me to pull the trigger on theory arguments by default.

Counterplans: I’m admittedly a bit inexperienced when it comes to all of the vocabulary surrounding perms. If you want to make a perm a voter for EITHER team, it’s in your best interest to use as little jargon as possible in order to explain why I need to vote over a perm. If a perm is dropped by the negative, I will not vote affirmative on it unless the affirmative explains how it’s different than negative advocacy. You’re going to have to show me clear reason why I’m not just voting against the resolution if you want me to vote aff on “perm: do the counterplan”. I love counterplan debates, but I’m not experienced on theory surrounding CPs and perms, so run the latter at your own risk. Solvency deficit arguments for the aff against the counterplan make a lot of sense to me—you’re going to need one if you want to weigh the case against the CP at all.

Disadvantages: I’m fine voting on any DA. The only tricky area for me here is the theory debates over the feasibility of politics disadvantages. If you want to make an argument like “fiat solves the link” or something of that nature, you’ll have to explain it slowly and thoroughly—please don’t count on me being able to identify your argument from only a short tagline like that. Impact calc wins so many rounds that come down to disads—I’ll be surprised if you don’t have it and I’ll thank you for making the decision easier if you compare your impacts and your opponent doesn’t.

Critical debate: I haven’t run into a kritik where I’ve been clueless, at least not yet. It’s probably bound to happen, so your best bet will be to slow down on tags, explain whatever vocabulary your author uses that isn’t immediately recognizable, and explain why a root-cause impact means you win if you win the impact. It’s in your best interest in front of me to pre-emptively explain why your opponent can’t just weigh their case against the K effectively. If you’re running a K aff, it will help me out a ton if you have a role of the ballot and you stick to it. If you’re running a T argument against a K aff, please address the role of the ballot. If you win T but the other team wins the role of the ballot, that makes my decision very difficult, especially if nobody weighs the two against each other.

Case debate: Case debate is awesome if both teams know enough about how the case works in order to explain why one argument may be a crucial point. I think that the 2N’s cross-x of the 1A is the most important and wouldn’t be surprised to see prep used at this point. I will consider how the case works and what the impacts of the case are before I weigh other arguments against it.

Long version for LD:

Speed: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the fastest I’ve seen, I can handle about an 8 on general arguments but I’d like you to slow down to about a 6 for the value/criterion/definitions/burdens/whatever you have in your case that determines how the round will be won. Tags should be slower than everything else in order to help them stand out.

Theory: I’m fine with theory in general. I have a low threshold for voting on theory and I’ll vote on potential abuse and competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Recently I’ve started seeing some theory shells in LD that are over-specific or complex--my response to this is to ask that you slow down on theory shells in general, especially the interpretation, so that I can understand the argument that you’re running. I haven’t been hesitant to vote on theory because it seems abusive, I’ve been hesitant because I wasn’t sure if I understood or heard the argument correctly.

Off-case: I’m fine with off-case debate in LD, though I do have a few suggestions. If you’re running a DA, you need to explain to me what “uniqueness” means in the instance of a resolution that doesn’t designate a status quo. If you’re running a counterplan, you need to explain why it negates the resolution, especially if your opponent isn’t running a policy option. For specific types of off-case arguments and how I view them, please look at the policy long version.

Case debate and Framework: Win the round whichever way that you feel is the most strategic. If you want to jettison your case and say that your side of the resolution better upholds your opponent’s value and that your opponent’s value is superior, then go for it. The only burden that you have in my eyes is to explain to me how your chain of argumentation leads back to the resolution or why it shouldn’t have to. I’ve fine voting for an aff that uses the neg’s value and vice-versa. I’m most comfortable with a value and criterion, but I’ll be able to follow whatever type of case that you want to run. You should still try to establish (in your case) an idea of what you need to do in order to win the round and then explain that to me.