Wilson-Chavez,+Owen

I'm currently a senior at North Texas. I debated for Duncanville High School, and I graduated from there in 2006. I mainly competed in Congress and Extemp, but I did my fair share of LD.

Presentation: First, speed. I can handle speed. I've judged, and debated, debaters who have thrown speeds at me that I couldn't handle, but on average I can handle speed as long as I can clearly understand what is being said to me, where the main arguments are (please, please, please signpost for me; my mind can wander in rebuttals and if you dont tell me where I need to be on my flow then I'll stop writing or put it in a place where I might miss it when going over the round to make my decision), and I can understand why you need to be speaking that fast (if you spread in your AC and finish with time left my frustration will be shown in your speaks).

Argumentation: BE SPECIFIC. If an argument makes sense, and I'm told, clearly, why I should consider it, then I have no problem with it. As long as debaters keep in mind that I love analysis (Congress, Extemp background) when presenting their arguments they should be fine. I only start getting agitated towards someones framework when they get incredibly technical but forget to go over the details. That in mind, I am a Value / Criterion intensive judge. I like V/C clash and arguments, both in case and out, that advance the V/C debate more than I like arguments that kind of throw the V/C debate out the window. But, I have nothing against pre-standard arguments or any other kind of argumentation that doesn't focus on the V/C debate. I'm open to whatever arguments are thrown at me, as long as they make sense and I'm told why. Oh, and offense wins wars.

Values: A LOT of values that I come across in LD are the obvious choices (i.e., "justice" is in the resolution so debaters choose to value Justice). That tends to get on my nerves. I don't know why. Maybe, as a judge, I get tired of hearing the same handful of values being thrown at me at every tournament on a topic and enjoy hearing a wide variety of values. Also, debaters who come up with values that are actually standards gets on my nerves. Criterion weigh. I'll get to that.

Standards/Criterion: Basically, make sure your standard is a weighing mechanism that links with your value. I've come across too many debaters who have good values and standards without any sort of clear link.

I honestly don't know what else to cover. I'm never good at explaining what I like to hear from debaters in a round because every debater is different and I may love something in one round and hate it in another. All I can say is that I'm open to pretty much anything, and if I'm not particularly fond of something you can always tell by my body language.