Meyer,+Will

About Me: I'm an alumnus of Princeton High School and now a first-year at Swarthmore College, where I do American and British parliamentary debate. I debated LD in high school for four years on both the local and national circuit. My senior year I broke at most national circuit tournaments and won UPenn.

Paradigm: As a judge, I do not want to intervene. If I have to intervene, both of you have failed. Present me with a metric for how to evaluate the round, prove to me that your metric is the right one, and then win under that metric. Beyond that, be courteous to your opponent. Speaker points will be determined by the quality of your debating and how much I enjoy the round. The only other thing that will affect it is that I will deduct points for being obnoxious or rude to your opponent. I will average 27.5. If you are a debater who should be breaking you are unlikely to get below a 28.5. If your speech contains arguments and is delivered at least semi-eloquently you are unlikely to receive below a 26 unless you are offensive or rude. Get a 29.5 or (in extreme situations) a 30 by delivering a creative, open advocacy that allows for an interesting debate on the topic while being rhetorically compelling and perceptually dominant. Just remember to give me voting issues at the end and WEIGHING throughout the round. Beyond that, have fun and good luck!

Preferences: I will evaluate anything but, that said, here are types of arguments or cases that tend to make me happy or sad. My happiness will not affect how I evaluate the round but it can can certainly affect speaks, though not to an extreme degree.

Happy: Nuanced Philosophical Frameworks Good Social Justice Kritiks (Feminism, Queer Theory, Race Theory, etc.) Creative Disads/Mutually Exclusive CP’s Theory on Actually Abusive Positions (Multiple A Prioris, Multiple Necessary but Insufficient Burdens, etc.) Aff gets RVI’s Crystallization and Layering (Voting Issues!) In depth engagement of stock positions in a nuanced and informative matter Strategic use of Cross-Ex

Sad: Skepticism Theoretically Justified Philosophical Standards Kritiks with no alternatives (Reject is not an alt) AFC CP's that are not mutually exclusive Strategic but Unnecessary Theory Theory Shells with regurgitated claims and no warrants Wasting Cross-Ex

Edit for Newark: I haven’t been to a high school tournament since I graduated last year so you should go a notch or two below your top speed. I will say clear if you need to slow down. After saying clear twice I deduct half a speaker point for every additional time.