Sims,+John

Updated 3/9/13

Hi, this is my best attempt at summing up my paradigm. I am just gonna divide it up into different issues I can think of. If anything is unclear (or just completely unaddressed) feel free to ask anytime before the round.


 * My info**: I debated for four years on the Dallas circuit and graduated in 2011. I now coach at Colleyville Heritage HS. I competed in TFA, UIL, and even some (one or two tournaments a year) national circuit LD, and I have some experience in UIL and TFA policy (so I'm comfortable with policy-style arguments).


 * Speaks**: I average about 28. I generally tend to award speaker points based on two things: style and strategy. If you are a really compelling and persuasive speaker or if you make really smart arguments, I'll give higher speaks. If you want to get a 30, do a combination of both.


 * Speed**: I can handle just about any speed; I just need clarity. If I drop my pen/look at you sideways, nine times out of ten, it is for clarity not speed. I will say clear ONCE. After that, your speaks will drop. I would also prefer that you slow down a little for tags, analytics (especially in theory), and voters. It's not a huge deal if you don't, it just may make it harder for me to vote/write my ballot (and that makes me sad).


 * Values**: If your case has a value and you run it well, more power to ya'. I like good value debate. But I also understand, especially considering some recent topics, that value debate can be fairly restrictive. Basically, I won't require a value, but don't just ignore your opponents value if they have one.


 * Criteria/Standards/Burdens**: I expect something to tell me how to evaluate the round. Whether you want to do this with a criterion, standard, or burden you place on you or your opponent, really doesn't matter to me. In the end, I just need you to impact back to the weighing mechanism and weigh impacts. This is especially important when you're using one of those "evaluate everything" consequentialist standards. If you don't tell me how to weigh the impacts, both your speaker points or the ballot might turn out differently than you would like.


 * Theory**: I generally default to reasonability, unless there is some sort of justification for competing interps. I'm open to RVIs or any other offensive responses you wanna make to theory, especially if there is no in-round abuse or if the argument is obviously "junk theory". And I don't really require a straight-up shell for theoretical arguments; if you wanna call an argument illegit, just make sure you tell me why it is illegit (preferrably by demonstrating some kind of abuse).


 * Kritiks**: I will listen to anything that is germane to the round. If you are reading something that isn't terribly mainstream, slow down and explain it to me. I really hate generic kritiks that have very little to do with the aff or the topic. This includes crap like terror talk or gendered-language (sure, I ran it, but that doesn't make it good). I don't think it's too hard to figure out if your kritik falls into this category, but if you're worried, feel free to ask.

I can't think of anything else that is really important to me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.