Hammonds,+Garrett

Years of High School Judging experience: 3

What's up y'all! I competed in high school forensics for 4 years doing policy debate my senior year and I have competed on the college parliamentary debate circuit for 3 years now for the University of North Texas.

Biggest stuff: Clear impact calculus work (don't make me guess how to vote), evidence with strong warrants that can be extended by the debater, competitive counter plans, and arguments not purely used for strategy but also for education.

CPs - I am all about good counter plans. I am not in the boat of unlimited CPs. I believe that just as one can narrow the ground of a negative or affirmative team to the point of hurting fairness, they can also expand the ground to unfair areas as well. I would rather hear one really in depth counter plan as opposed to six really weak CPs. Also not a fan of consult counter plans. I have never seen enough real world application to the arguments, but if you can make a good argument then feel free to do so! I'm good with conditionality. Big fan of agent CPs. I feel like they have good portable debate skills.

DAs - The disadvantage is probably my favorite type of argument. I love the politics DA especially. Make sure to always have the full packaging of a DA. A strong internal link can make a big difference in winning an argument. I appreciate specificity to the plan when it comes to reading links. I am not a fan of generic DAs that are read for purely strategic value. The only reason in my mind to read purely generic arguments is if fair ground is being clearly taken away.

T - I am a judge that will vote on a legitimate T, but don't waste my time. T needs to have clear examples of where the aff unfairly gains arguments and where the neg unfairly loses arguments because of the plan being run. Again specificity is key.

K - I read as much as I can, but I am not always read up on all the literature for every K, so don't assume that I understand the argument or every academic term you toss out unless the card explains it. If the card doesn't define the argument in a way that can be understood by everyone in the round then it should be explained further by the debater. I am a firm believer that the K needs to have a solid link to the plan. If the neg cannot prove a clear link than I will not vote for the K. I like the idea of the K and I am more than willing to listen to it, but a sloppy K or incoherent K debate is miserable to sit through.

General Notes: I am good with clear speed. I prefer debaters slow down on tags to make sure no vital arguments are missed by me or fellow debaters. I am not super stingy with speaker points as long as all of the debaters are not rude to each other. For speaker points I take into account performance and quality of arguments, although I try to weigh more on the performance side for speaker points. I love the debate community. Keep it real!