Bessey,+David

Experience. Policy debater at Copper Hills High School for 3 years under Scott Odekirk.

Freshman debater at Weber State University.

I've judged two camp tournaments and a couple bid tournaments this year, so I'm fairly familiar with the topic so you can read all you want, I'm good with all your wild arguments.

I think debate is an activity that should teach participators, and critics alike how to be better advocates in the world. I, of course have my idea of what "better" means, and what "advocate" means, but if I'm judging, I'm going to vote for the team who better advocates what they are proposing (whether it's state action, or a crazy K). I consider myself a K debater, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a topical plan, or the good old Counterplan/disad. As long as you defend your position well enough, anything goes.

General Arguments:  Go for what you want, what matters more is how you develop the argument, and explain it. If you want me to evaluate certain arguments over others, let me know what's up in round.

T: T debates are fine, I don’t think my threshold on T is high in either direction. That being said, I’m less willing to pull the trigger on T when teams don’t impact T beyond buzzwords. I’m not saying you can’t label standards with those words, I just think you should probably explain why things like education or fairness are important to debate.

FW: I love framework, and honestly I notice myself swaying a little more towards the negative in a K aff v. fw debate, but all the Aff has got to do is do good job at telling me why fw is bad. Impact turn the ish.

Theory: Theory args are acceptable, if you can articulate a scenario for abuse. I’ll probably default most theory args might not be reasons to reject the team, but that all depends on how you frame that argument. I'm definitely a critic that you can go for theory in front of.

Counterplans: Counterplans are fun, make sure they’re competitive, make sure there’s a net benefit. Shadier counterplans like word PICs aren’t my favorite arguments, but I’ll vote on them if you articulate a net benefit.

Disadvantages: CP/DA debates might be my favorite negative arguments in debate, make sure your disads are either net benefits to the CP or are packaged with some case turns/impact defense, otherwise the aff will probably beat you in a body count debate.

THE KRITIK: K’s are fine, just be willing to put in the work necessary to explain the argument. I know all of the greatest hits, (Marx, Security, Baudrillard etc). but there are things I might not understand without some explanation. You don't need an alternative to win on a Kritik if you can phrase it as an effective enough case turn, that being said, having an alternative makes it much easier to resolve those debates if your alternative can resolve the impacts of the case.

Case: Case debates are underrated, but do what you have to do for your negative strategies. Read impact defense. Case debates make being a critic that much more fun.

Impacts: Comparative impact calc is something that makes resolving debates much easier for me. Questions of magnitude, timeframe, and probability are important and you should talk about those, but take it to the next level and talk about how your impacts interact with each other.

Delivery:

Speed is fine, clarity is better.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Don’t hide behind your laptop for the whole round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Don’t prep steal.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Don’t be a jerk to other debaters, don’t be a jerk to your partner.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Maybe try and have a little fun, who knows.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Speaker Points:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't think a speech deserving of a 30 exists. I'll probably stay within 27-29 speaker points. If you're a meanie I'll probably dock your speaks.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**IN ROUND NOTES.**


 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I flow CX. I feel like a lot of useful arguments come from cross ex. (mostly for speaker points)
 * It wont dramatically change them, but if you have good ethos in CX, it can help.


 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Card clipping is cheating, and you'll lose if I catch you.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Card cutting during rounds is alright, I did it every now and again, but you probably shouldn't spend too much time doing it, for instance I only cut one card every few rounds, and it was a small card to answer something I thought could possibly be a slayer arg.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Case debates = more speaker points.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Things you can do for extra speaks.
 * I think cool actions like flailing your arms, and jumping up and down can be entertaining. Yes, do that.
 * Be nice to the other team. This should be a respectful activity. I was always nice in round, and was rewarded highly with better speaker points.
 * Although I probably wont see it, be really nice to your partner. This is the person that is essentially going into battle with you and is working hard for you, and with you. You partner doesn't deserve any negative treatment from you no matter what is going down in round. If something bad goes wrong in round, help them make it better, because they'd probably do the same for you if the tables were turned.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Email for questions: davidbessey11@gmail.com