Quinn,+Colin

Colin Quinn High School: Glenbrook South College: University of North Texas Rounds Judged This Year: Who Knows

As an overarching paradigm I guess I can be persuaded to vote on almost anything. Some things will require a little bit more work than others, that is not to say you shouldn't read what you want in front of me it just means you should explain everything as in depth as possible. As long as an argument has a claim warrant and impact I will evaluate it

Topicality: I like T debates. Competing Interpretations has its value but I find a well developed reasonability argument to probably be better for debate. The way aff teams lose T debates is that the Neg has a well rounded interpretation that has a predictable limits argument and specific instances of ground loss that should be predictable based on the resolution. The aff needs to make sure all theory landmines in the block are handled in the 1AR.

Counterplans: I think the best counterplan debates are well developed plan specific PICs. That being said i'll vote on most counterplans. It's hard to win that a certain counterplan is illegitimate but competition is something that is under-debated.

Disadvantages: They're pretty sweet - Impact calculus should be a priority.

Kritiks: Not familiar with some of the literature base so explain arguments more than just repeating buzzwords. The aff probably won't win the neg isn't allowed to read the K and the neg will have an uphill battle to win the aff shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan. I think framing issues are the most important here. Explain how I should evaluate the debate and if you win that it will implicate how each argument plays out.

Affs: Do you and i'll evaluate the debate. Whether you want to read a plan or not. My presumptions about debate won't affect how I judge. the Neg can win framework or some other substantive strategy. It all depends on how the aff frames the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I try not to be but I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

Speaker Points: I wasn't an awesome speaker in high school but here's how my point system breaks down. >29.5 - Probably the best speech I can hope to hear at any given tournament 29-29.5 - Very good - no execution errors 28.5-29 - Good speech - could have done better in some areas 28-28.5 - This is probably my average 27.5-28 - Some Mistakes that are pretty obvious 27-27.5 - Need to Improve - plenty of mistakes in the speech Anything Lower - Pretty Poor performance or something egregious was done to warrant such low speaker points