Cory,+Daniel

I debated four years ending in 2007 for Jersey Village High School. I have not judged since 2009 or 2010. That means that I won't be familiar with new jargon, that I will have forgotten most acronyms, and probably that I won't flow as well as I once did (which wasn't that great anyway). I loved debate, and my goal is to let you pursue whatever strategy seems best for you within the limits that I need to be able to understand and make a clear decision. Anything I say here should be interpreted in that lens. If you've got an awesome strategy that you can justify voting for even though it goes this paradigm other than the rules, go for it. My purpose in judging is to help students because I think debate has huge value. To that end, if you have questions or suggestions, or want clarification of something I say, please let me know. Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

 Speed. I will do my level best to go as fast as you go--I think it's my responsibility to be as attentive as I can. If you're going really briskly, it will be best if you slow down for signposts, tags, authors and in depth explanations of an argument's function. If I can't flow, and the reason is that you're just too fast, I'll say clear once. If I can't flow, and it's because you sound like you've been eating marshmallows when you go fast, I will be capricious about saying clear. If I don't flow or remember an argument, I can't vote on it. I'll call for written arguments or evidence following the round if there's an argument about what's in it. I would strongly prefer you not go fast in order to make a bunch of 1 sentence arguments, but I would love for you to go faster than normal speed because you have a too many awesome things to say.

 I do my best to make a decision based on the arguments as opposed to presentation style or belt color. Arguments instead of just words because I think the general form you should be using in debate is some variant of claim, evidences of that claim, then explanation of how that claim functions. If the form you use is somehow performative instead of purely argumentative, I'm going to have a hard time voting for it absent some discernible argument embedded in it that demands my ballot in a way I can explain after the round. I have never voted because I 'felt compelled.' Again, you're paying the money and wearing the nice shoes, so do what you think is best.

 Do you have a really strange argument from someone with a Dutch name? Do you have only stock arguments? Do you have a mathematical proof of the truth or falsity of the resolution? Do you have a harebrained nuke war disad? Great; I'll be glad to listen if you attach a good reason to listen. I need you to set a standard or rule to direct the way I vote. The way I'm most familiar with doing this is by justifying a standard, then making arguments which impact to that standard. If there are multiple standards or pre-standards arguments I need you to explain and defend the hierarchy of these standards or arguments. Why are any of them voters? Which is the first to be evaluated? What if the Affirmative wins one pre-standards argument and the Negative wins one? There needs to be a clear, warranted reason for an argument to come before the assumed criterion model, and that reason needs to be in each speech. A warranted reason will not be only that you said the words 'a priori' in the NC. You might win that if there is no way I can weasel out a decision anywhere else on the flow, but I promise I will look hard. With that said, if you win an argument that isn't contested elsewhere, I'll assume it's true. If it doesn't impact to a standard or a pre-standard issue or the ballot or something, I won't vote on it.

 Theory. You will find that I am not a good theory judge. I don't understand it beyond a casual level. Nevertheless, I'll vote on theory if you win that I should. If there are out of round rule violations, you should talk with tab and not me. You should have an interpretation, a violation, some standard or standards and an impact/ballot story, whether all these things are broken out that way I do not care. In my ideal world, theory would be read in the cases that someone has done something that prevented the opposition from making arguments, not in order to get an easy win against someone unsophisticated or to avoid substantive debate. The more jargon in your theory argument, the less likely I'll be able to understand it. As with any argument anywhere, it seems better to have offense on theory positions than to not have offense on them. If I'm going to be honest, it will be harder for you to win on theory than on something else, so if you're really not seeking to combat some irreversible ill in your opponent's position, probably best to go for something else. Unless their strategy really messes you up in a way that shouldn't be allowed! Then go for theory! If you go for theory I will do my best. If theory isn't something I can resolve because it's muddy or you both won offense and refused to weigh, I'll skip to the next flow. If you don't explain to me why this particular violation of a standard should require me to vote against someone (instead of just ignoring an argument, glaring at them, giving you 2 Flow Points (TM), etc), I probably won't vote on it.

This next part is disjointed: -If your argument functions a different way in the second speech than in the first speech, it's probably a new argument. -I find CX a good way to compare the skill level of debaters, so if you've got the choice I'd rather have a defined cross examination than flex prep. Again though, they are your funds and shiny shoes and you should pursue the strategy that makes you most likely to win. I can't keep time because I can't tell time. -In the NR and the 2AR you should tell me where I'm supposed to look. First extend what you need to, then tell me how it functions, how it interacts with other arguments, how it weighs against standards... If you both leave me with a bunch of un-weighed impacts, I will try to decide what means what and which is better based on cleanliness, magnitude, likelihood, potential of a link to the standard and so on. -Last substantial point: I will negate if there is absolutely no possible Aff/Affirmative debater offense unless you argue otherwise. I come into the round thinking you're trying to show that the resolution is true, so if you don't show that the resolution is true or tell me you don't have to, I'll negate. This default negating may look ugly on speaks, and it will be avoided if I can find a shred or likelihood of offense that could link to a standard. This "likelihood of offense" may make general skepticism of truth claims a difficult set of arguments to win on without some argument about your burden. This means that burdens should be a component of how you tell me to evaluate the round. I'm not happy to contribute to the tidal wave of negative ballots without reason, but I just don't have another way to decide rounds where no one wins anything.

 It would make my day if you wiped the floor with your opponent on the flow but were really nice to them. If there's some horrible violation of civility I just vote against you, but that never happens. Unless we're forced by time or dinner to vacate the room, I will explain my decision as thoroughly as you like. I am fine with questions. If you have shouting-type questions, I would prefer you wait until your opponent leaves and shout at me in the hallway or find me later. I won't be handing flows to debaters, but if you say something unique or interesting I might discuss it with others for non-competitive reasons. I don't have active affiliations or conflicts besides Jersey Village