Clement,+Travis


 * //Coach - Scottsdale Preparatory Academy (2013 - Present): Scottsdale, AZ//**
 * //Alumnus - Dobson HS S&D Team (Mesa, AZ). Bachelor Degree: Arizona State University//**

I mostly coach Public Forum debate, but occasionally get pulled into Lincoln Douglas depending on varying interest in my team. I mostly competed in (and now most frequently judge) PF, Congress, and speech.
 * __Experience:__**

If I am roped into being your LD judge, please know that I will do everything possible to keep up with everything on the flow. That being said, I don't pretend to be caught up with all the latest philosophical literature, so your ability to thoroughly explain your arguments (and the ideas/values behind them) is paramount to your success. Don't assume I know what many of your philosophical debate jargon means. I would particularly caution against spreading in LD with me as your judge. I suggest having succinct tag lines for each contention (and/or sub-point) to help me keep up with everything on the flow and simultaneously be filling in parts of the ballot as I go.
 * __Lincoln Douglas:__**

- **//Speaking / Spreading://** The intent of public forum debate is have a form of debate that is to the average (though fairly educated) population. Though I have a debate background, I strongly value/reward those who keep S&D accessible to new competitors and community members by speaking clearly, free of debate jargon, and avoid spreading. Very few people effectively "spread" while still maintaining clarity throughout (most end up having so many extra fillers "uhhs" and dropped words/syllables that they don't get that many extra ideas in anyways). - //**Fairness:**// I believe the resolution is usually worded intentionally in such a way to give an equal burden and equal ground to both sides of the debate. Please link back to the __//exact wording//__ of the resolution, rather than a translated version that you created to benefit your side. - //**Framework**//: When I competed in PF, nobody used framework. I now acknowledge that framework is almost universally used these days in PF and I've adapted with the times and so will weigh frameworks that presented. If your framework is blatantly abusive, all your opponents usually need to do is briefly explain why it is abusive (i.e. framer's intent) for me to throw it out. Don't have any of this silly "in order to win, my opponents must complete each of these seven Herculean tasks" that the framers never intended kinds of frame-work. Conversely, adopting your opponent's framework and clobbering your opponent within their own framework is very satisfying. I've judged several PF rounds where they continue to argue over framework that doesn't matter, and where their time would be better spent focusing on arguments. - //**Argument Structure:**// "Claim, warrant, impact" structure tends to work best for convincing me. Particularly give me magnitude and probability when weighing impacts of your key voting issues. Be structured: give roadmaps and sign-post your arguments as you go - **//Strategy://** My favorite phrase to hear in rebuttals is "even if you don't buy that..." followed by a second, third, fourth, etc..attacks. Don't assume that just responding to your opponent's argument at the face value is the same thing as actually refuting. Offer multiple responses and multiple lines of defense in case I don't buy your argument initially. CLASH! DON'T JUST REHASH! - //**Evidence:**// I tend to not call to see cards of evidence after the round, unless your opponent raises the question of the authenticity or misinterpretation of the evidence. Please don't force me to do your job (analyzing evidence) for you. - **//Oral Critique://** I tend to not believe oral critique is helpful in most tournament settings (though it is a great tool in practice settings), due to the limited time-table. I'm on Team LetsGoHomeBeforeMidnight! Unless it is a very novice round, or if there's actual rule/procedural problems, I will rarely give oral critique. I would much prefer to spend that time writing a full ballot (so you and your coach can both see my feedback and reason(s) for decision). Too often when my students get back ballots that say "oral critique," they are unable to re-iterate to me anything that the judge said (just 1-2 days later). I value your learning, I try to write full ballots, rather than waste your time with oral critique that you won't remember. Spend those five minutes eating a snack before your next round.
 * __General Debate Philosophy:__**