Holland,+Robey

I am the head coach of Anderson in Austin. I was a 4 year debater in high school, 3 years LD and 1 year CX. This is my 14th consecutive year in the community (including my time as a competitor.)
 * Experience:**


 * Email chain:** robeyholland@gmail.com


 * Circuit tournaments judged/will judge this year:** Grapevine, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, UT, Churchill, Emory, Colleyville, Berkeley, TFA State, and locals for days.


 * Big picture:**
 * You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.
 * You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.
 * I like policy arguments a lot. It’s probably what I understand best. It's certainly what I spent the majority of my time as a debater reading. Take that for what you will.
 * I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s strategically necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are really persuasive on this issue.
 * Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics with the exception of the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.
 * I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.
 * You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.
 * Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.


 * Speaks:**
 * Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.
 * Snap shot of average speaks I've given at tournaments this season:
 * Grapevine: 28.3
 * Glenbrooks: 28.2
 * UT: 27.7
 * Churchill: 28.9
 * Emory: 28.7


 * Trigger Warnings:**

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. **At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.**

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.


 * Framework:**
 * I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.
 * You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.


 * Procedurals:**
 * I’m more down for a T debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default reasonability over CI but can definitely be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the CI flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.
 * You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.
 * It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics with the exception of the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.


 * K:**
 * I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like, and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.
 * Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.
 * For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.


 * Performance:**
 * As long as you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.


 * CP/DA:**
 * I think these are good neg strats.
 * Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.
 * Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.
 * Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.
 * I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.
 * I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.


 * Tricks:**
 * I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.