Royers,+Tim


 * Tim Royers (Updated 10/19/14)**


 * The "tell me the basics because I'm trying to get to my round and want to know if this judge is going to be bad for us" version:**
 * Head Coach at Millard West (Omaha, NE). Debated 4 years in high school, didn't debate in college. 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Usually end up with well over 60+ rounds judged per year.
 * Paperless is fine, but I don't stop prep until the flash drive is ejected from your computer.
 * I'm fairly "national circuit" in that speed is fine, I'm open to all arguments (really enjoy a good politics debate), but there are four notable exceptions in terms of my argument preference:
 * I don't like framework (the "you can't run kritiks" type framework). I think it is a bad argument. Details below if you want reasons why.
 * I don't like contradictory conditional arguments if one is a kritik and the other is a DA/CP that bites the thesis of the K. I don't think that necessarily makes the theory on perf con lights out, but I do think it arms the permutation on the K very well.
 * I am very open to non traditional styles of argumentation that are done well. Millard South and Westside are right down the street from us, after all. That being said, my 'favorite' form of debate is a solid DA/CP/Case round. I'm *open* to more non traditional arguments ... well honestly I'm really open to everything. Do what you do best.
 * I can't stand the latest batch of intrinsic arguments on politics. Stop it.


 * Alright, the details**

Decision Count: So a light affirmative bias. This is partially because a number of teams have gone for framework against a non traditional aff with me in the back of the room and I just don't find most of those arguments compelling (3 of my 7 affirmative votes were rejecting the neg's interpretation of framework). That doesn't mean that you should avoid running framework with me in the back of the room - I did vote for framework in outrounds at Valley.
 * Tournament || Affirmative || Negative ||
 * Valley || 4 || 3 ||
 * St. Mark's || 3 || 1 ||
 * Total || 7 || 4 ||

My teams have run everything from Politics/CP to the 1 off k ... traditional affs to those without a plan text. My point is - when I say I'm open to almost every argument, I mean it. The one exception to that is framework (see below). Just run what you can run well.


 * Presentation:** Speed is fine, as long as you are clear and can enunciate. For the most part, I'm laid back and open to arguments you present to me - but I expect evidence, line by line, secondary analysis, concise overviews, the whole shebang. Here's a few things that stand out for me as a judge:


 * 1) Evidence.** If I have to call for evidence at the end of the round that means you haven't done your job. Quality extension is more than yelling "EXTEND THE DIAMOND EVIDENCE." Tell me what the card is actually saying!


 * 2) Framework.** The way this position is //usually// run it is ... not good for debate. Saying you should only evaluate your type of impacts and slapping some theory on your block does not mean the other team simply vanishes. I've seen rounds where the 2NR/2AR each spend 3 minutes on framework and only get 2 minutes to actually talk about substance. You'll make me a much happier judge if you actually spend ALL your time on substance instead of devoting so much time to dribble. **My default evaluation is that I look at the speech advocacies of the two teams and vote on their discourse/advocacy.** //This doesn't mean I don't evaluate policy options - it just means you'll have a hard time getting me to ignore a particular advocacy simply because it doesn't fit your framework. It also means that unless you tell me otherwise, I don't evaluate one type of implications over another - e.g. I won't evaluate "pre fiat" before plan advocacy.//

//Update:// I'd like to offer some further clarity on my framework stance, since I've heard a number of teams recently make the assumption that that they are screwed if I'm in the back of the room and they're going up against a critical affirmative. My stance against framework comes from my belief that certain arguments don't have the right to be excluded from our activity simply for being a certain class of argument (e.g. a kritik, an aff without a plan text, etc.). I don't think that should be a decision made on the procedural level, but rather one that should be made on the substantive level on whether that type of argument has merit in this activity, on whether it does anything for education. Thus, I tend to think everyone has the presumption of access to their impacts. So just like I don't think a team can say "no kritiks," I also believe that saying "fiat is illusory, you don't get your impacts" by a neg is shallow. With that idea in hand, I'll still evaluate a framework flow. At the Iowa Caucus, I voted for framework against a critical affirmative largely because the neg argued that in their framework the aff's style of arguments were in the realm of the negative, and were not excluded from the activity. The aff had no significant response to this idea, so I pulled the trigger.

If you have any questions on this position, I'd be happy to clarify.


 * 3) WAAC (Win At All Costs).** This idea that you can run whatever you want, no matter the contradiction or how it interacts with your other arguments, makes for piss poor debating. Negation theory has crept back into rounds I've watched, and I'm not too happy. My main beef is if you run a kritik and then run arguments that bite it, all the while arguing a discourse alternative. There's no excuse for running Heidegger AND an Oil Disad arguing that oil consumption is GOOD. In my opinion, that's just poor argumentation. If you're skilled enough to win at the national level, you shouldn't have to resort to that approach to get a ballot.

Now, will I drop you if you run a bunch of conditional advocacies? No. Will I be partial to someone running a performative contradiction arg on your discursive alternative for your kritik? You bet. I am more partial to using this contradiction to mitigate the alternative versus a giant perf con bad theory dump. I feel strongly that you should have **ownership** over what you say - which is why I have such an aversion to multiple conditional arguments that conflict. If we don't have ownership over our speeches, what's to stop a team from arguing rape good or God forbid ... Spark?


 * 4) Politics**. I love an awesome politics debate. This requires you to cut your own cards (not just run a Thursday file), be up on the latest bills, etc. The neg teams that can do in depth political analysis and identify specific Reps or Senators plan will impact get a big <3 in my book. Doing it well and winning on it is a quick way to get great speaks. At the same time, running an intrinsic is the fast way to make me frown. Fiat is a gift in debate so that we assume that plan, no matter how controversial, is going to pass. That gift comes at a price - the neg in my opinion has full access to discuss the ramifications on the Hill just like they could debate the shockwaves felt in our economy or in our ability to project power, etc. It is a dangerous precedent - can you just perm away a link to an economic collapse? What about a relations da? That's a line I am unwilling to cross as a judge. If an intrinsic is conceded, the notion that dropped = truth takes precedent, but if there's even an //inkling// of a response to it, you have a snowball's chance of me picking you up on that argument.


 * That's all I've got! Have fun.**