Woods,+Jared

__** "{ }" = updates for Greenhill 2016 **__

I debated LD for 4 years at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX on both the TOC (Tournament of Champions) and TFA (Texas Forensic Association) circuits from 2007-2011. 2016-2017 will be my sixth year judging. I have been a lab leader at UNT's Mean Green Workshops, UTNIF and Victory Briefs. I am not currently affiliated with any school and am conflicted against Cypress Woods and Northland Christian.

Speed is fine. **{I have done very minimal research on this topic so please don't expect me to know your authors or what the popular arguments are. This means you should probably slow down quite a bit for tags and explanations. I still won't vote on an argument if I don't understand it.}**


 * If I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. So if you're going to read dense philosophy please slow down some.
 * I'll give you higher speaks if you slow down for tags and author names.
 * Clarity is still important. I'll say "clear" or "slow" twice per speech, but if I feel like you're still not adjusting then I'm done flowing until you do. Don't be surprised when part of the RFD is "you were going to fast" or "you were too unclear" if you don't adjust.
 * I hate it when debaters spread through speeches needlessly. Just win the round. This will make the difference between a 29 or a 29.5.

I default to a comparative worlds paradigm.
 * Debaters should advocate something, even if that advocacy is as general as the resolution itself.
 * CW/Policymaking does not mean "I listen to util and only util."

Skep... don't do it.

Tricks... don't do it.

I've come to rarely enjoy theory debates. Sometimes these discussions can be incredibly interesting and enlightening. Most of the time they're just really annoying. **{I've realized I'm terrible at flowing theory debates. If things get too tech you might lose me. I'll try my best to keep up, but I'm not going to pretend to hear something that I didn't. Also, since I'm not on the circuit much anymore, I'm probably unfamiliar with any new theory trends that have popped up since 2014-2015.}**
 * I default to a competing interps paradigm.
 * I don't take a stance on RVI's. I'll default to what the debaters tell me. I do think you need one to win the debate on your counter interp though; offensive counter interps are not persuasive to me.
 * Frivolous theory employed solely for strategic gain annoys me. Speaker points will be impacted.
 * AFC is pretty silly.
 * You need to SLOW DOWN A LOT for your interps and it'd be awesome if they were written down in some fashion BEFORE the speech begins.

I rarely ran kritiks when I debated, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't run them. When explained and performed well I really enjoy watching K debates. What this means for you:
 * Like I said above, if I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. Slow down for rhetorically dense cards, make your taglines clear, and impact your arguments. My threshold for argument explanation in K debates is substantially higher than other types of debates. CX and crystallization in rebuttals is important.
 * I don't assume the aff has to be topical coming into the round. I would REALLY love it if the aff was grounded in the topic, but if you win the arguments for why you shouldn't have to be topical I'll buy them.

Policy arguments are awesome. I love hearing a good politics DA, creative plan, or a strategic PIC. These are my favorite debates to watch. These are also the debates I feel most comfortable evaluating.
 * Evidence comparison is always important in such debates. However, in numerous debates this year I've heard the 1AR and 2NR read 10-15 cards and then never do any kind of analysis. This is NOT good and makes policy debates terrible to judge. Just read 75% of the cards you were planning on reading and do some analysis and evidence comparison after each card. Your speaks (and likely the decision) will reflect my appreciation.
 * I will call for evidence after rounds.
 * Absent an argument for why I should default to presumption if the net benefit to the CP doesn't link to a framework then I just assume that the impact is relevant still. In other words, if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff but the net benefit doesn't link to the aff framework I would still vote off of that net benefit because it is a net bad to doing the plan.

I give some leeway for extensions especially in the 1AR. "Claim, warrant, impact" is not necessary if an argument is conceded, however, if there is refutation on an argument, simply restating the author and tag are not sufficient. You should be able to explain the argument and its interactions with the refutation. If the 2NR does weighing, I think 2AR weighing that was NOT done in the 1AR is new. The negative needs to have an opportunity to respond to aff weighing. If the 2NR does not weigh, then 2AR weighing would not be considered new.

*I will only evaluate an extension and explanation of an argument if the full warrant and impact are present in the constructive speech* (obviously the caveat is if new off cases are read in the rebuttals).

I base speaker points on the following: clarity, quality of argumentation (well-developed as opposed to blippy, good cards, strategic vision, etc.), consistency with my paradigm, general entertainment value, among other things. I adjust how I give points based on the difficulty of the tournament. For example, if I think, given the field at a particular tournament, that the performance you gave in front of me warrants clearing I will probably give you a 28.5. With that said, my scale is as follows:

30 - the unicorn... you have a good chance of winning the tournament 29/29.5 - you really impressed me... you should be in late outrounds 28/28.5 - you did well... you should clear 27/27.5 - average

The following things will guarantee low speaker points:
 * Blippiness
 * Being a jerk (this could mean that you lose too -- more on that below)
 * Making wildly new arguments
 * Making several bad and/or generic theory arguments against very stock positions
 * Saying that there's no impact to racism/sexism/homophobia because it doesn't link to a framework (or any other reason). If you do this you'll probably lose too.

The following arguments I will not evaluate (and will likely tank your speaks for):
 * Skepticism (triggers)
 * Miscut evidence
 * Arguments lacking warrants
 * Arguments I don't FULLY understand by the conclusion of the debate

I feel 100% comfortable intervening against debaters I feel are being disrespectful to the opponent or judge(s). In prelims, I reserve the right to give you a 25 or below automatically if I deem you to be rude to your opponent or myself. In outrounds, where I don't have that luxury, I will not hesitate to use my ballot as that tool.

Of course, feel free to ask me any additional questions you may have before the round. Have fun and good luck!