Hayward,+Harrison

Background: I debated for four years at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines. I competed for 2.5 years in policy debate and ended my career in LD. I am also currently a coach there as well.


 * Read this if it's five minutes before the round**: I have not yet found a debater who I couldn't flow, but that being said I would rather you be clearer than fast. That ensures a) my flows accurately reflect what you are saying and not my interpretation of what you said, and b) means higher speaks for you in the end. I will evaluate most arguments, but would rather have a substantive debate rather than a theory one. I default to competing interpretations on theory and topicality, which means the aff must either win an "I meet" or a competing interpretation to access an RVI. I also think fairness is always a voter, but can be persuaded that something else comes first (i.e. education). I am well read in most continental philosophy, but you always need to explain your position if you want me to vote on it.

Speed: I did policy and progressive LD I can flow most speed. That being said I also prefer debaters to clear rather than fast. If you are going to speed make sure to slow down on analytics, differentiate between the tag of cards and the body of the card, and to signpost where you are at. I will yell clear twice and then stop flowing.

Theory/Topicality: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm on theory, this doesn't mean I am not open to reasonability arguments however. If you are going to make a reasonability claim you will always need to justify why I should evaluate it. I view most theory debates as matters of what you are justifying rather than what you did, this means I default to theory always being a voter. This also means that RVIs are also always a voter. To win an RVI, however, the aff needs to either win an "I meet" or a competing interpretation. I am also open to jurisdiction arguments if you are running topicality.

Evaluating the round/What I would like to hear: I find I am most frustrated while judging if there is no clear framework with which to evaluate the round. That means I would prefer it if there is a value/criterion through which I can evaluate impacts/arguments. That being said, if you tell me what arguments matter under your kritik (i.e. only ontology etc.) than I will use that as the framework. I will try and do as little line-drawing as possible to get to the decision, which means I would like you to tell me how your arguments interact with your opponents and what that means for the round. I tend to stray away from a truth testing framework as my default way to evaluate the round (I default comparative worlds), but if you make an argument for it I will evaluate it. I think most plans, CPs, and DAs should remain in policy, but if you defend your position I am not unwilling to vote on it. I do think kritiks have a place in LD, and when done well are extremely effective. Other than that make arguments for what you're defending and why you're right and I'll evaluate it.

Kritik stuff: I am fairly well read on most continental thought (extremely so on others), and as such am probably aware of what your kritik is talking about. That being said, you still have to explain it (show a clear link, impact, and an alternative). Don't hesitate to run a kritik in front of me, but just because your author talks about something doesn't make the affirmative irrelevant, you must respond to the 1AC unless clearly noted in the kritik.

Speaks: I default to a 27 as the base for speaks and go up or down from there. I don't care whether or not you sit or stand for speeches or cross examination, just as long as you're facing me. I have been told that I probably am a "point fairy" so take that for what it is worth.

How to get a 30: I find it hard to justify ever giving a 30, because for me what represents a perfect speech varies from round to round. If you are going to shoot for a 30 in front of me you probably should do the following: 1) make it clear where I should vote, 2) in what order should I evaluate the voters, 3) be polite, 4) if you've clearly won a debate wrap it up quickly, and 5) make the debate interesting (i.e. crack a joke in cross examination or something).

Other: Don't shake my hand after round it's awkward for a number of reasons. Don't be mean to your opponent. And to steal from Nate Fredericks: "Be young. Have fun. Speak pretty."