Mugweh,+Teddy

High School Debate – 3 years of Policy Debate, and 1 year of LD Debate. College Debate – Weber Debate: 2013 – Current My name is Teddy “TJ” Mugweh – further questions can best asked via tjmugweh@gmail.com
 * __ To whom it concerns __**


 * In general ** - I let the debaters run the round, you get to set the rules so tell me what they are and what I as a judge should be evaluating in the round. Also, I will call for evidence at the end of the round if necessary to decide. So don't lie to me about how amazing your card is and when I read it after the round I find out you were lying. Additionally, I will always value what arguments were presented in round as opposed to what your author says. If it's on my flow one way, but your card says another, I'm going to give more weight to my flow. That also said I will always try to not do work for either team. You should have a clear debate enough that doing work is not necessary. On a side note, debate is a competition but you don't have to be jerks. You can be amazing and win rounds but you don't need to attack your opponents in round for that to be clear.

I also flow with a pen on paper and in columns.


 * Voting – ** I tend to vote for procedurals rather other parts of debate. This is because engagement of debate is probably more important than the impacts you present. I am also pretty big on evaluating impacts. Things like body count tend to matter to me. The bigger and truer you argument is then the easier it will be to pick up my ballot. Explaining why the dehumanization impacts are capable of being weighed close if not equally with generic war/body count impacts. Effective use of the impact triangle (Probability, Time Frame, Magnitude) is probably going to be the difference is most rounds.


 * Rounds that are: **


 * Policy v. K round **** – ** I tend to vote on the Policy option more. Due to the fact it comes down to impacts. I believe that if you let them get access to nuclear war impacts then things like racism and dehumanization are probably less effective not to say unimportant. I am very willing to vote on a Kritik, but there needs to be very clear reasons to as to why it’s more important.


 * K v. K – ** These are very fun to watch because of the year I did LD. I tend to view K v. K as a methodology debate, and whose best accesses as to why and how the implications of actions should be 1. Evaluated 2. Engaged 3. Implicated


 * Policy v. Policy ** – These are the easiest for me to watch. The basis of this is competiveness and evaluation based on who does the most/solves best.


 * Topicality ** - I am willing to vote Negative on Topicality, but not a fan. Meaning you should expect a high threshold of explanation and give explicit reasons for me to vote on it.

1) **__Explain__** your violation. I should never be confused about what the violation is and it should be consistent throughout the round.

2) Your standards should be clear as well. I want to know why the Affirmative violation of your interpretation is bad.

3) I will vote for **__REAL__** abuse over potential abuse. I think that T can be a gateway issue if the team presents and defends it as one. If there is real abuse going on in round and it is clearly articulated that is persuasive to me.

4) I may call for the plan text if T is a deciding factor in the rebuttals.

If you are going for T go “all-in”. I'd like to see the vast majority of the 2NR spent on T if you want it to win you the round. Anything less than 4 (HS) 5 (College) minutes means there is usually not enough depth for me to understand a clear violation and give the argument enough weight to vote on it. Trying to combine T and another flow also means less coverage on the impact debate, you get less theory arguments and it becomes too shallow to really evaluate it.


 * Kritik ** - A solid Framework and alt advocacy when reading a Kritik. I want to know where I should vote, how I should evaluate your Kritik, and what your alt does. Also, for the Affirmative, don't only play defense in why your case can work within the Negative Framework, but also present offensive reasons as to why it can solve the Kritik. On a whole I have read some of the Kritik literature but I need to be under to understand all of your Kritik to vote on it. Your argument should be **__VERY__** clear. I need you to tell me what your alternative advocacy is, and if there is a specific action, and if not how your argument avoids the harms that you think Affirmative plan causes.


 * Counter plan ** - To win the C/P you need to not only win the net benefit but also win solvency of plan action. However I'll also vote on perms if I think that work has been done on the solvency story for the Affirmative. I usually default to test of competition than advocacy. In depth comparison of world of the C/P versus world of plan and/or perm is also very persuasive.


 * Disadvantage ** – I have a strong belief that going for a D/A requires that you have at least some level of defense on case. I think there should be a **__VERY__** clear reason why the status quo is worse than anything the Affirmative does solve.


 * Case ** – Please keep case involved, people forget about it post 1AC. It makes me sad. I will vote for a clear no solvency argument. If the Negative does more work on the case flow than the Affirmative then it’s “lights out”. I think that the Affirmative has to do some type of extensions within the 2AC to be able to really access any of case in the rebuttals; I won't just grant a magic appearance of strong case arguments later. Additionally, I think that Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC more because if you spent all that time doing research you should be able to use your case in a variety of ways to answer arguments, it’s just more efficient.


 * Theory ** - I'm willing to vote on theory. However, you should have a **__clear__** interpretation of theory and be able to explain exactly why/how the other team is affecting your ability to debate. Present a clear and definitive argument that will really persuade me as a judge.


 * Point System ** – I try to be as fair as possible with speaker points because they are pretty subjective and pretty arbitrary. I tend to be a point “fairy”, meaning I generally give higher speaker points that other people.


 * 30 ** – You need to provide a Very good analysis of your argument, in your framing and the framing of the team. This leads to clash, which needs to happen and be properly executed in order to get a 30. My threshold is high for this because people generally do the say what their argument is and maybe explain the core of it. However the lack the what does this mean in this round, and what does it meaning in the world of Affirmative, Negative, and on my ballot. I appreciate a clear reason to and how to evaluate an argument. Also discourse is important due to links and the atmosphere of debate. Being civil won’t give you speakers points, but that also means I won’t have to deduct them. I strongly believe in using all your speech time regardless of what the other team says, because there is always “more” to say. (almost impossible unless you are Jason Auro)
 * 29.5 ** – Everything listed above, minus speech time and shallower explanations of arguments and clash.
 * 29 ** – Generally being the best debater in the round. How I evaluate the “best” debate in the round is a over all round participation. Flow: winning full arguments is good. I always end up feeling for the team that dropped on a very small part of the debate, which is slowly shifted through then blown up at the end. I feel that strategically that may be good, but undercuts the purpose of debate, but good job for being strategic