Williams,+Sean

I did policy debate for four years at Juan Diego Catholic High School, twice qualifying for the TOC. What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas. Therefore, I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible when evaluating a debate. I think this has two important implications:  1. I highly value meta-analysis from debaters, especially in the last two speeches. There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.  2. I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made. On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy. Lastly it is worth mentioning that my experience with the latest topic is limited so I may not know some of the core acronyms immediately.