Shearer,+Tyler

Background: Highland Park High School (TX) 2009-2013 Just completed my second year of collegiate debate for the University of Iowa

Some general comments: The long and short of this is that I prefer, like most judges, contextualized debates. It's fine that you have pre-written blocks for arguments but have moments where you truly connect what you are saying with what the other team has said within the debate round.

I am highly unlikely to call for very many cards at the end of the round and I will not flow off of your speech documents. This means that I value clarity and efficiency over incomprehensible speed. Speak as quickly as you like but make sure that you articulate your arguments effectively. If I cannot understand the argument by listening and looking at my flow, I will not reconstruct the debate at the end of the round.

By and large, I enjoy all types and forms of debate. Do what you want to do in front of me, and I will do my best to judge fairly.

Framework:

I've run my fair share of affirmatives that did not defend usage of the United States federal government and I have also defended policy affirmatives. I get and comprehend the benefits of both sides of the debate. Having said that, comparative analysis of each others impacts on this argument matters more than reading your pre-written blocks. If you want me to vote on framework, you must give me impact outweighs, impact turns analysis, and a topical version of the affirmative that are tailor fit to the affirmative you are debating. For the affirmative, specific examples and careful reading of the negatives evidence will get you very far in front of me.

Ks:

Framing and what you want me to do with your framework will help decide these debates more times than not. The literature bases for these arguments are quite large which means you, more than likely, will know more about your K than I do. With that in mind, specificity and contextualized examples will get your further than generic theoretical ramblings.

Topicality:

Still one of my favorite arguments. For the negative, case lists and limits debates are persuasive to me and ground arguments less so. For the affirmative, a counter interpretation and an affirmative ground/education argument are persuasive to me.

CP/Theory:

I don't tend to think one way or another on any of the major theoretical issues. Saying negative flexibility will not get you very far unless you unpack the argument. Affirmatives who simply read their pre-written blocks also won't win these debates. The more egregious the negatives abuse of their power; the easier it should be for the affirmative to produce a compelling theoretical objection. Unless told otherwise by the debaters, I will default to reject the argument and not the team.