Elkins,+Weston

Policy debater @ Lamar Consolidated 2000-2004 Coach @ Travis High School, Kugnus ACTS, and Tompkins High School 2009-2014

Overview:

I'm a lot more open-minded than this paradigm may make me seem. Chances are I will vote on arguments that I do not like if the debater does a good job. The main issue for me is that I want to see unique debates with thorough clash that are focused on/within the resolution. I don't like debates that involve reading competing blip shells. I don't like affirmative cases with 4 minutes of pre-emptive arguments. I don't like when negatives attempt to shift the focus off the resolution.


 * Delivery**

I'm fine with speed with the following conditions a) **be clear**. I will not yell clear for you. Part of your job as a debater is to monitor your judge's feedback. If I'm not flowing it's because I can't understand what you're saying. b) **slow on tags and authors.** This is especially true if you are utilizing blippy arguments. I'm fine with speed if it's used to add depth to the debate, not if it's used to sneak an argument through on the flow
 * Speed:**

I prefer debater stand while speaking and during cross-examination
 * Standing:**


 * Argumentation**

Topicality: I see this as a jurisdictional issue. I utilize my own discretion (what I will refer to as a rational person standard) in determining whether or not an affirmative's interpretation is fair/legitimate. Very little can be said in/out of the debate to sway my perspective on the topical nature of the affirmative once I have heard it. This is my way of saying I really don't like T debates. I don't like when negs utilize T against an affirmative that a rational person would consider topical. And I don't like when the affirmative runs a squirrel case with, at most, some obscure connection to the resolution.

Kritiks: **Must have a link** specific to the resolution. **Must have an alternative.**

Role of ballot: It is highly unlikely I'll ever see my role or the role of my ballot as anything other than a traditional selection of who debated the resolution better. I will not endorse perspectives that sever the resolution.

Performance: Must be linked to the resolution in a reasonable manner.

Policy arguments (counterplans and disadvantages): The negative's approach/strategy should be tailored to the approach of the affirmative. If the affirmative does not advocate a plan, then I would prefer not to see da's/ cp's. If you're going to utilize cp's/da's against a more traditional affirmative, you need to explain how the policy framework fits into a general endorsement of the resolution and why it is superior. I just don't want to see the whole debate become about whether policy-making is better than a truth-testing framework.

Impact analysis: Let's face it, most impacts are ludicrous. I evaluate impacts based on their probability and certainty before their magnitude/scope. In other words, I don't want to see a race to nuclear war, genocide, extinction, etc. I definitely don't want to hear Mead tell me that economic collapse results in world war. The guy has been writing that stuff for decades and through multiple national/global economic downturns. I prefer impacts that are rational and limited in their scope.

Theory: Don't like it.