Wey,+Eric

Eric Wey Grapevine High School Currently debating at University of North Texas Rounds judged this year: 50+ UPDATE 3/11/11 TFA State So far I've judged over 50 debates on the military deployment topic so I'm pretty familiar with the literature floating around. I worked for mean green workshops during the summer and now help coach at Grapevine. I am a former debater for the University of North Texas. Last year I reached quarters of the JV breakout at Wake Forrest, semis of JV nationals, and was consistently in elimination rounds at regional tournaments. I tend to think that I am very flow centric and will try to minimize intervention at the end of the round. That being said I need direction for how I should vote-impact calculus would help as well as impact comparison. My thoughts on debate have changed some since last year and I want to make it clear in my philosophy. First, I think debate is a game that is determined by the debater. That being said I don't want to be a judge that makes a debater uncomfortable about reading a certain argument or debating a certain way. I am under the belief that a debater should direct the direction of the round and not the judge. However that does not mean you can get away with arguments that are not articulated clearly. As a judge my role should be to decide who win's competing arguments in there favor and I can only do that if your able to successfully explain your argument. As for specific arguments do as you wish but beware of some of things I'm looking for when making a decision.

PAPERLESS DEBATE I am a large supporter of paperless debate, that being said however i think there are some norms that need to be established for teams debating without paper. 1. If your a paperless team-you must provide the evidence read to the other team. if you do not have a viewing computer then you must surrender a means for the other team to read evidence. No giving the computer to them after you read the evidence does not count. 2. Don't read ahead-scrolling ahead is cheating you wouldn't grab the evidence from a paper team before it has been read, dont do it while paperless 3. Prep stops when you save your speech. I will not count prep for the dead time while you transfer your speech to the other team. Me respectful of time though. If you take to long I may be irritated

1. __Kritiks__: I don't dislike them but it’s definitely not my favorite argument in debate. I'm not familiar with a lot critical literature so take care in explain your argument to me. If I can't understand the argument it’s going to be an uphill battle for you. Like all arguments be sure to impact this argument and correlate with the affirmative. I have a tendency to evaluate these debates on an offense defense paradigm like I do with disads and t/theory.

2. **__ Disads: __**Compared with kritiks I’m definitely a big fan of this argument. The CP should obviously be competitive with a solid net benefit, and then everything is fine. I really like turns case arguments. Give me comparative impact calculus please. This debate is pretty subjective; just make sure you explain your arguments.

3. **__ CPs __** - I am fine with Counter plans of all types and flavors and am fine with all theoretical arguments. Once again I just need explanation. Everyone please just make logical arguments. I enjoy well researched PICs and tend to error negative on question of theory for these counterplans. Also I can be swayed either way on the legitimacy of agent CPs.

4. **__ Topicality __** - I need to see comparison and analysis before I vote on something, I will avoid intervening no matter what the deal is and I leave it up to the debaters. I usually default to a competing interpretations f/w unless told otherwise. Impact your argument just saying it’s a voting issue isn't enough. I also have a tendency to view these debates in a offense defense framework.

5. T**__ heory __** - Same as T really, I also am a fan of cross-applications when it comes to T and theory. I don't often vote on potential abuse unless I am given some sort of really compelling analysis, I would prefer you only go for some sort of theoretical objection in one of three instances: a) they drop it, b) you have no other choice or, c) there is clear abuse.