Leishman,+Cam

strikes: viewmont high school, chandler high school

I debated for four years in high school, mostly at large regional and national tournaments. I spent a semester debating for Weber State and am now a finance/accounting major at BYU. The team that makes it the easiest for me to make a decision for them will usually win the debate. This is usually done by forming a coherent and compelling story in the 2NR/2AR. I’ll listen to anything that’s said and am not predisposed to never vote on something, unless it is against tournament rules to do so (i.e. double wins/losses). Some certain points to make that are generally the case with most judges, but are worth repeating:

topicality: an important check on affirmatives, especially on a resolution as ginormous as the current one. I’ll usually default to a framework of competing interpretations, but will listen to abuse claims. explain what impact your interpretation has on ground for both sides of the resolution. Also, passé analogies will be rewarded with lower speaker points and loud sighs.

theory: same thing every other judge in the history of the universe says – slow down, don’t be excessive with sub-point structure, and remember that in order to win both a link and an impact need to be established. Try and be responsive: your 18 point block on conditionality being good does not necessarily answer the 2AC’s condo bad block. I have more sympathy for abuse scenarios with regard to theory, but generally side with the negative on things like a single conditional counterplan, or dispositionality.

the k: most of the people reading this will probably just skip down to this section to see if I’m down with their new deleuze k or equivalent. I am, but i also (along with every other judge in the world) try to hold k debates to a higher standard than “they use the state, here are some martin cards.” A clear iteration of the alternative by the 2NR is a great step in getting a vote, unless doing so is precluded by something about being a rhizome or something. Generic link cards aren’t ideal, but they’re usually linguistically the most suitable for policy debate. Don’t hesitate to make these types of arguments, but remember you need to (creatively, usually) find a way to answer their impact calculus.

case: awesome, great, love it. Remember the offense in the 2NR, because unless the 2AR really mishandles their impact calculus you’re probably not going to win terminal defense. Defenses of the status quo are usually helpful in leveraging your offense.

Cp/da: love process counterplans, case specific pics, something that demonstrates you’ve done enough research to engage the affirmative on a non-generic level. Solvency deficit vs. net benefit debates are good, and I usually find “even a risk of the disad” arguments pretty compelling. Control the impact calculus, and odds are you’ll win the debate. I would prefer to see this debate over any other, but no biggie if it’s not your thing.

speaker points: I’ll start at a 27.5, which will be average. A 30 is unlikely, but the judges that never have and never will give one out are dumb. Things like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., will be rewarded with significant drops in speaker points. Humor is greatly appreciated, as are Arrested Development references. I’m generally pretty nice though, in terms of points.

Please feel free to ask about anything before the debate, I’ll be happy to clarify.