Weddington,+Tommye

I've recently graduated from the University of Rochester where I debated for four years. Now I'm at St. John's University doing my Master's work. I'm doing a lot of work teaching debate and helping out debate programs in the city now, which has affected my views of debate since undergrad. If you already know me from my time as a debater, then you probably know that in the majority of my rounds I ran critical args. This may mean that I understand some of your kritiks a bit more easily than other judges. It does not mean that I'm instantly down with your philosophical leanings or will accept less explanation. I value technical debate. Just because you're not a traditional team doesn't mean that you can wave away disads or counterplans. You still have to answer the substance of arguments. I prefer arguments that say something matters. I love a good T debate. I'm not afraid to vote on T either. I think that there are benefits to be gained from traditional policy debate. I think there are harmful aspects of traditional policy debate. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. Not to make another team lose. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards. I don't think losing a permutation necessarily means that you lose a CP/K flow. I don't think framework is necessarily a zero-sum game. Smart teams exploit overlaps in "opposing" frameworks. "shotgun" and perfcon neg strats aren't really my cup of tea. I'm sure I'm at least subconsciously more prone to vote on theory in these instances. Strategic concessions are good. Internal links are of the utmost importance. If you have evidence that just says "extinction" as the tag, I'm already frustrated thinking about it. I'm not prone to reconstruct arguments at the end of a round. If I don't understand what you're saying between four people telling me for an hour-and-a-half you did not succeed at the communication portion of the activity.

As far as in-round decorum: Don't be a jackass. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">For extra speaker points: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Make good jokes, especially if they're about my friends. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Don't be shady. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">After the round I always try my best to give constructive criticism and a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Updates: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">I'm still trying to figure out how activist I'd like to be in certain instances. I was recently disturbed by a team running racially based args to which they had // seemingly // no connection. They were using philosophical analysis of the African/African-American's place in society (that being one of ontological damnation) as a means to win the ballot. As an individual who is an object/subject of this analysis, I do feel like my experiences have been somewhat commodified by the debate community. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable letting this sentiment affect my ballot, but if you do this, expect to be called out after the round. I think that there is a difference between using examples of oppression to explain an argument, using (relatively) personal narratives in debate, and using anothers' oppression to win the ballot just the same as your hegemony turns.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">This just in - I'm also not a fan of using identity politics to reject other identity politics without specific links. Probably not a good way to produce education for the "real world"

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Also, for high school - I'll ask if the affirmative team has disclosed a plan text before the round. If I discover that the team has not disclosed a plan text, I'll cap the team's speaker points at 27. I'm open to changing this policy if convinced to do so.