Woods,+William

=__William Woods- Judge Philosophy__=

**Debate background-**
I debated in Northwest Washington high school debate for four years. During that time, I did 3 and a half years of Open Policy (CX/Cross-EX) debate. I currently am a second year college debater. I am also in my first year as the policy coach at Lincoln High School (OR).

**General Stuff**
I see debate as a space for the debater. You should debate what you want and how you want, its not my role as the judge to decide how/what you can read in round. (Not to say I will tolerate oppressive and offensive discourse or actions in round).

Debate rounds are always for the debater first, and so I will do my best to be as fair of a judge as possible with the arguments you say. Framing and role of the judge/ballot args are good, but not necessary. People should be comfortable to be in the round and everyone should make sure that is everyone feels safe.

I tend to vote off the flow first and try to prioritize judging this way, but if you take issue with this I am open to evaluating rounds anyway that you ask me to in the round. Flashing does not count as prep, but don’t over do it.

**More Specific Info**
__T/Theory__- I probably have a lower threshold for voting on procedurals than many people on the circuit. a clear interpretation/counter-interpretation in order to best evaluate the procedural debate is important, otherwise I will have no basis for how to evaluate your standards. T/Theory is probably always a voting issue but should still be articulated why, otherwise I will give the other team more leeway on the debate.

__Kritiks/Critical debate__- useful tools that can have very important messages as well. I mostly have done reading on Rancière, Marxism, Afro-pessimism, Foucault, (and some post-modern works). I think framework args on Kritiks are a good idea but not required. I will not do the work to make your arguments make sense or interact on the flow, that is up to you as the debater to make that happen. Overall a big fan of the K debate, of any kind.

__Kritikal affs__- Go for it. I am open to any kind of 1AC. Whether you are in the direction of topic, intersect with it, or reject it. Just give me a reason to prefer your method and I will adapt to that. I will still vote on framework/T against these affs if the neg wins the argument, so don’t assume I will just reject those arguments on face.

__DA’s__- Good stuff. I think DA turns and outweighs case args are great and should be a big part of any neg strat. Politics DA’s are a good strategic tool in debate as well but make sure your uniqueness is up to date.

__CP’s__-. They are a fine way to steal all your opponent’s offense and make sheets of paper go away. Make sure they have competition and explain solvency mechanisms.

Note- If you are debating a novice and you’re an open debater obviously try and win. But there is a point where you should take a moment and make sure you are not being exclusionary. There is no reason to keep spreading at 400 wpm if its clear your opponent is not keeping up or is close to. Make sure you keep the debate space inclusive and not scaring away kids from the activity.

LD-
So I am a policy debater by trade but if you are doing more contemporary style LD then I think I will be able to understand and keep up okay. All of above applies to whatever you would have to say as well.

Public Form-
I will need reminding of the times and how that works. Other than that this is just like any other kind of debate, and I will do my best to evaluate it in that way.

Final Notes-
Please feel to ask any questions before the debate begins about anything you would like, or reach me at williamwoods@lclark.edu.