Bates,+Corbin

Corbin C Bates High School: Waller High School and Arlington High School High School Debate Experience: In high school I mainly competed in LD with a practical knowledge of CX. College is where most of my policy debate experience became flushed out. College: University of Houston Current Debate Team: University Of Houston Debate Team Rounds judged this year: 30 Years Judging: 3 Current Job: Other info:

Paradigm - I believe more in a judge conforming to the debaters than the debaters conforming to the judge. In this regard I have experience considering all forms of debate in one regard or another. I would never tell a debater to change a strat simple because I am a judge and most people should feel free to run any arguments that they are comfortable with. That being said, I do hope for a great deal of clash in the round and I normally default to a policy maker stance if no ROB is given or if no other criteria is up for consideration. The most important thing I could say is just to be yourself, if you are a traditional debater go with it and if you want to run a critical narrative then lets do this. On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 6 Favorite Debate Argument: I love very squirrely arguments, things that seem utterly bonkers but that work. This doesn't mean that just because you have the coolest idea I will vote for it though, the ability to execute an idea is very important. A little more specifically I have a fondness for kritiks such as security but I find that they are often underutilized. Least Favorite Argument: I have never had a particular fondness for theory arguments, I understand them and will consider them but I just find them a bit duller than other arguments. Won't vote on: I will vote on anything if it is presented in the round.

Other broad preferences:

Specifics - Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high) Topicality 3 Theory 3 Disads 3 Counterplans 3 Kritiks 3

A good debate about Topicality A good debate about topicality should firstly have some legitimacy in my mind by being able to show some sort of in round abuse, potential abuse is a lot trickier to consider and is just not as convincing or as strong of a position.

The standards debate should become rather clear cut by the end of the round, focused around just one or at most two standards that not only have implications within round but also outside of round. Fairness has a bit of an edge over education in my mind. A good debate about Theory:

A good debate about disads: A good debate about counterplans: A CP should have some sort of mutual exclusivity to it, but having something built into the argument goes a long way. Additionally the application of turns on case can generate some exclusivity but you need to be making it clear that is what is happening if you go that route.

A good debate about Kritiks:

Other specific argument prefences:

Other Things: Speed: 4 Their flow: 4 Comments on flowing/speed: I am pretty good at understanding people when they spread, that being said. Standard stuff, go as fast as you are able while being clear, don't spread if you don't know how. If I don't hear the argument it doesn't end up on the flow.

Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated- 8 Factors for speaker points:

Other: