Hayes,+Ford

Bio: I debated for 4 years at Wayzata High School in Plymouth, MN. I currently go to school at Montana State University in Bozeman, MT. I don’t currently coach any team, but I do hire myself out for national circuit tournaments. That’s probably why you’re reading this.

I’ll try and do the short and long versions here.

Short, pre-round condensed version: You can do your business in front of me. I have no bias in what you’re running, and thus it wont affect your speaks or my decision. I flow at an average speed, and am somewhat likely to call cards at the end of the round for a variety of reasons, especially after a heavily carded kritik debate. I believe the advantages of the case need to be at least moderately extended through every speech, if you plan on accessing them in the 2AR. I also quite enjoy deep framework debates, and find that the framework is usually significantly more important in my decision than the 13 Foucault cards you read on the K flow. I’m also not moved by “They can’t have any K’s, that’s cheating” frameworks. I love specific PICs, and do not find them abusive. I think that PICs generally reward good research, especially when they have an equally specific net benefit. Please slow down on T and Theory, I will not call your blocks and fill in the blanks for you if you read the Condo Bad shell at 500 WPM. I’m also not incredibly versed in the T debates on this topic, meaning that you need to slow down and explain your violation and reasons to prefer if you want T to be a viable option in the 2NR. Speak clearly, I’ll yell “clear” or “loud” if I can’t hear you. Lastly, you do not get bonus points and I wont hack for you because you read some stupid argument that I liked reading when I debated. I’ll probably be annoyed if you think that I’ll give you a 29.5 because you read the Fear of Death K. But if that’s your thing, go right ahead. PLEASE SIGNPOST.

Long(er) version, for those strike sheets:

I guess I’ll go down the list of arguments and what I prefer in them. I may restate things from above, but you should read both if you have time. Then I’ll put some general comments at the end.

T: I haven’t judged many T debates, and they haven’t been very diverse. Please slow down and do a good job explaining both the violation and why your definition is better. I’ve also never understood the difference between “Offense/Defense” and “Reasonability vs. Competing interps” judges. I think you have to win offense that your way of evaluating T is better. Given the limited number of rounds I’ve judged on the topic, I don’t really have a list of what I find reasonable. Use that to your advantage however you wish. I’ll listen to K’s of T, but they need to make sense. A K of T when you’re running a Heg aff just seems silly, and your opponent will easily dismiss it as such.

Theory: I’ll vote on it, but it should be the focus of the 2NR or 2AR. I dislike blippy one line theory arguments read at a thousand miles per hour. I also wont call your blocks and read them to fill in gaps on my flow, so if you actually want to go for theory, be slow about it. I have no real opinion on the legitimacy of Consult or any other type of counterplan. I do, however, think that PICs are probably good for debate, and make you research more. That’s not saying that I can’t be persuaded to vote that PICs are bad, though.

Case/Disadvantages: Nothing special here, except that I’m fairly hard to convince that you’ve ever won 100 percent defense on something, and that you should win on presumption. Also, you need to extend your case in every Aff speech if you want to use it as offense in the 2AR. A lab leader once told me that there is some Jedi mind trick in debate, where if the Neg doesn’t talk about the case, the Aff wont either. Please don’t let that happen to you.

Kritiks: I’m a political science major, not a philosophy major. This means that you need to do significantly more work to explain the K to me, than you might need to do for more K savvy judges. I do, however, quite enjoy hearing K debates. Just consider that your Nietzsche K may be a bit dense for me to work out, if you’re only doing minimal explanation. I’ll usually lean Aff in these situations, so make sure to explain things like why your evidence says we shouldn’t consider the Aff’s impacts and weigh them against ontological damnation or whatever else you come up with.

Framework: I cannot stress enough how important winning Framework in a K/Performance debate is. Aside from the fact that it makes it incredibly easy to justify the ballot in your favor, I also really enjoy a deep framework debate. A deep framework debate, however, involves much more than “They can’t weigh the K, K”s are unfair” “We should be able to weigh the K, they teach us things”. Good cards, and good analysis of why your Bleiker card means that we should look at the debate in such and such way. Comparative analysis of the world of debate, and this specific debate, under both teams frameworks will go a long way to deciding the round. I’ll stress again that most K debates become extremely muddled, and having a decisive victory on framework makes it very easy to vote for you, and saves me a lot of time. I will appreciate this greatly, and good framework debates will result in very good speaks.

Performance: You can do it, I just need a reason why it is productive, and why debate should be utilized in the manner you wish it to be. If you’re doing a performance, you should already have all of this thought out, so I don’t imagine it will be a problem.

Random thoughts on speaking: I’ll yell “clear” or “loud” or something similar if I’m having problems hearing you. Speed shouldn’t be an issue at all, just don’t sacrifice clarity for it. You can stand or sit, and I have no weird preferences for speaking that differ from the rest of the circuit. I want you to do whatever it takes to have a good debate, if that means resting your chin on your 6 tubs and reading that way, cool. I also love an intelligent and aggressive Cross-Examination, but lets keep it on the better side of the “Mean/Not Mean” line. Also, please actually use your CX time, as it should be incredibly helpful. PLEASE SIGNPOST. The odds of me making a poor decision greatly increase when you do a poor job signposting. If I’m trying to figure out where on earth this is supposed to go, I am not writing down what you are saying. Also, slow down on Tag/Author, it saves me time calling cards, and lets me know when to hit enter 4 times on the computer.

Other things: Speaker points aren’t up for debate, they’re for me to give out. Time limits aren’t up for debate (though you’re obviously free to sit down and end your speech). Card Clipping is a Loss if it’s brought up. Please don’t do it, it’s harmful to the activity and hurts both your reputation, and the reputation of your school. You do not get bonus points and I wont hack for you because you read some stupid argument that I liked reading when I debated. I’ll probably be annoyed if you think that I’ll give you a 29.5 because you read the Fear of Death K. But if that’s your thing, go right ahead. Most of all though, have fun. Debates are way better to judge when everyone obviously wants to be there.

Any other questions? Shoot me an email at fordbhayes@gmail.com, and I’ll happily answer whatever you want to know.