Houston,+Wade

1. Update - I now accept truth testing arguments. My original paradigm was largely influenced by my bias against massive a priori spreads that were prevalent when I debated. These strategies are now far less common, and there are legitimate, substantive skeptical arguments that would be unreasonable for me to ignore. For me to vote on an priori, I need a reason why it comes first. For example, if the affirmative says that their world is more just than the negative's, I need to know why the nonexistence of justice is important enough for me to vote negative regardless of the desirability of the aff world. I am still receptive to theoretical objections to truth testing - the difference is that I now just assume that it is legitimate unless proven otherwise by one of the debaters.

2. Speed – For the most part, go as fast as you want. If you have a lot of short analytics close together, you should slow down for that part of your case. This also applies to theory debate. It is very important that you pause briefly after you’ve signposted to a new part of the flow so that I can get there before you start talking again. If you start talking before I’ve reached the right part of the flow, I will just start typing your arguments in whichever random spreadsheet cell I get to first, and there’s a chance I will think that you’re dropping arguments that you’re actually responding to.

3. Impacting – it is necessary that you have an evaluative framework (a standard, whatever) to weigh your impacts.

4. Weighing – please do it. In general, if a card and an analytic are unweighed I tend to give leeway to the card, since cards are more inclined to have internal warrants and more in depth explanation. Non-comparative weighing (my argument outweighs on magnitude because it’s big and on probability because it happens a lot) is meaningless. Direct comparison between arguments is necessary – tell me why your impact is more likely to occur than your opponent’s, not just why your impact is likely to occur in a vacuum.

5. Solvency – all you need to win is a comparative advantage. The notion of an absolute solvency burden is absurd. For a “no solvency” argument to have merit it must be accompanied by disads/turns.

6. Coherence - I will not vote for any argument that I don’t understand. This applies to all three parts of the argument. Even if your claim makes sense, if I don’t understand your warrant, I won’t vote for it.

7. Critical arguments – I am conceptually open to these, but you should run them at your own risk. I may not understand them. Please slow down when explaining complex ideas and when reading cards with dense rhetoric. You will need to go into greater depth when explaining critical arguments than you would have to for stock arguments, since critical arguments tend to make a greater number of assumptions. I can appreciate a good K with a solid alternative, but if your strategy is to spew Zizek cards all over the AC, you will most likely lose.

8. Theory – Fairness is always a voter, so don't waste your time arguing otherwise. That said, I default to viewing theory as a means of excluding arguments, as opposed to an offensive reason to vote. This means it is unnecessary to warrant a voter if you only want to exclude unfair arguments. If you want me to vote on theory, you will need to make a substantial commitment to explaining why fairness is offensive (it's a gateway issue, whatever). It can also be strategic to explain why the abuse you're encountering is so severe that voting on theory is the only way to truly rectify it. The two most persuasive approaches to answering theory are 1) offensive arguments proving why your interp is better and 2) “no abuse” answers. I will assume an internal link on ground/reciprocity, but you will have to justify internal links for other theory standards (predictability, time skew, etc.) for me to consider them. In general, I find that objections to resolutional analysis in the form of structured theory arguments are far more compelling than a storm of analytic framework blips. For example, I am more inclined to give the aff framework leeway against "the AC is nontopical because this word means x" than I would be if there was a fully developed T shell. I default to a reasonability understanding of theory, meaning defense can beat back theory and you do not need a counterinterp. That said, I frequently find myself evaluating theory under competing interps because most debaters neglect to answer that argument. Finally, I will not vote for theory arguments that say deontology is unfair, since winning permissibility counts as offense.

9. Topicality – My threshold for voting on T tends to be higher than my threshold for voting on other theory arguments, primarily because most of the T arguments I've seen have been terrible. If you’re not sure if your T shell sucks or not, consider asking yourself the following two questions: “Does this T shell link to every AC on the topic?” and “Given that there are ‘A’ and ‘B’ types of AC’s on this topic, as soon as they read ‘A,’ am I going to tell them they should have run ‘B,’ and vice versa?” If the answer to either of these questions is yes, you should not run T. A good T debater will make comparisons between the fairness of the aff and neg interpretations, as opposed to just claiming that the aff is taking too much ground. If the neg does not explain why the ground loss incurred by the aff is key or necessary neg ground, and the aff points this out, then I will disregard T. (That last sentence assumes a reasonability understanding of theory.) I am receptive to weighing for why T comes before 1AR theory because the neg shouldn’t have to formulate a strategy against a nontopical AC, though you will need to be way ahead on T for this argument to be compelling.

10. Speaks – you start with a 27 and move in either direction from there. My favorite debates involve massive on case spreads and lots of evidence, though I will not penalize you if you choose to debate differently. I will reward demonstrated skill in any style. I reserve the right to dock your speaks if you run any of the following arguments:

-anything that lets you win with a 1% impact (taint of injustice, toolbox good, etc.)

-the resolution is a tautology, the resolution is nonsensical, bad a prioris in general

-the democratic choice negative that says that we should reject the aff because it makes arguments without somehow knowing if a democracy would support those arguments.

-bad theory (util/deont unfair, the stockest argument on the topic is unfair, nebulous education claims, etc.)

-“linking directly” to the value – this is probably the single most annoying thing you can possibly do. Figure out what a criterion is and use it.

-more to come as I think of more - fortunately I’ve managed to block most of the arguments in this category from my memory. If you think an argument you’re running may fit into this category, just ask me before the round and I’ll tell you. I will vote for the above arguments should they meet the other conditions in my paradigm, but I won’t be happy.

11. Discourse - I have never voted for a discourse argument and it wouldn't surprise me if I never do. I am conceptually open to the idea that some discourse positions might be worth endorsing, but I have never seen one I felt comfortable voting on, even if it was dropped. Since discourse appeals to an out of round impact, I have to be convinced I am actually making a positive change or doing a good thing with my ballot. The ballot is a piece of paper with words on it. You will be hard pressed to convince me that what I write on it changes the world. If your opponent makes racist comments or endorses the Holocaust, you can convince me that making an example out of them with a loss creates positive change, but I think that's about it. I am not interested in endorsing your movement, especially not in prelims. Even in an outround with an audience, I don't think some high schoolers watching a discourse argument win is going to create social change. In reality, it's just going to provide them with an incentive to run stupid nontopical arguments also.

12. Last but not least, make sure your extensions are reexplaining arguments thoroughly instead of just referencing them. This means that a claim, warrant, and impact must be present in every speech. I will give you leeway in outweighing underdeveloped arguments, and if they are blippy enough, I may throw them out entirely. I have a lower standard for extensions of evidence, since you are just stating empirical facts instead of giving analysis. Also, if your argument is dropped, I hold your extension of it to a lower standard than if it was answered. Unfortunately, the issue of underdeveloped extensions is frequently a focal point in my decisions, despite the fact that it's so easy extend arguments correctly. Even some of the "best" debaters just extend claims, and I won't let you get away with that no matter who you are.

If you have any questions, you can email me at wadehouston@gmail.com