Mooers,+Ian

Edmond Santa-Fe 2012-2016toc University of Oklahoma 2016-2020

As a debater, I got to some later out rounds/two bid rounds my senior year. I debated primarily in Oklahoma, but I was always trying to travel, so don't let my home state fool you too much. I tried to experiment with a lot of different styles, and I prefer no one style over other styles.

As a judge, I believe that the most interesting rounds are the rounds that debaters read strategies that they think they are best at- but like all judges, I have some ideological biases. 

Speed
yes. I will yell clear three times and then start docking your speaks. Slow down for tags, authors and important arguments.

Theory
- I default to competing interps if I'm not told otherwise - Unless you're exceptionally good at it, I get bored with very theory-heavy rounds, especially ones with few structural abuse claims. I will try my best to resolve - Weigh, weigh, weigh. - If I can't flow your spikes, it’s not an argument.

Policy args
yes. a good LARP round is fun

Topicality/Framework
I went for T in a large percentage of my neg rounds during my senior year. I’m cool with T, if it’s not too frivolous. Good framing makes all the difference. I presume that affs should be topical, but this isn't necessarily a preference. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That being said, I also have read affs that the strategy was to bait T/impact turn T. I tend to agree with affs on topicality when they straight up go for impact turns/do not pretend to be topical MORE THAN I agree with affs that straddle the line (for example, an aff that says 'you can vote for me for a topical voter AND a performative voter' usually was less convincing than an aff that said 'screw the topic, vote for the performance voter'). That is not to say that I have a preference for K over T (your old Giroux cards are boring).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kritiks
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I think a lot of the people I prepped with considered me a 'K debater' because usually my job was to cut strats against kritiks. I think I've read a good part of the literature, but what I like about K debates the most is the big-picture explanations of contrasting theories, and the creative ways people express complex arguments. Please explain your cards, explain your jargon, or else you're boring.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Anything else
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I expect you to flash cards to your opponent. I rarely (if ever) took prep to flash as a debater, so I would appreciate it if you don’t, but I won’t enforce it. If you take five minutes to flash, expect lower speaks. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cross-flex is completely up to the debaters. I won't dock your speaks or find you less persuasive if you refuse to answer questions in prep time (given that you didn't ask your opponent questions in prep time). Sometimes, it might be strategic, so do it. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Getting good speaks from me is all about being strategic. I view debate as a game of chess (with words). Of course, strategy may include being a more persuasive speaker, or arguing that I (as a judge) have a specific duty to fulfill.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For Oklahoma
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The worst debates in Oklahoma happen when people try and present 'progressive'-ly structured arguments in a 'traditional format'. If you're going to parametrize, read a plan text. If you're going to read a reps K, read arguments that talk about the role of the debate space, not a value and criterion. Otherwise, your arguments are incomplete, and I don't know how to evaluate them.