Wynn,+Cory


 * **Background**: I debated four years on the circuit for Brentwood School.


 * Overall**: Outline a clear way for me to evaluate the round and win it. Write the ballot for me. I'm accepting of any argument as long as I can understand it. Also, don't be a jerk.

Presentation: I don't care if you sit/stand. In fact I can't think of any presentation thing that really matters to me.
 * Specifics**:

Speed/Clarity: I can flow //clear// speed and will yell clear if I can't understand you. Things to slow down during -- tags, author names, long sections of analytics, when transitioning between portions of the flow.

Coherence: I accept any argument as long as it is coherent to me. If it has a claim, warrant, and impact fully explained then I will consider it. If it doesn't, I will not, even if your opponent doesn't respond to it.

Default: I default to a comparitive world framework. I default to resolving theory via competing interpretations. I default to viewing theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the debater. I default to not believing in terminal defense and similarly don't see the need to presume one way or another. These are just the ways I view the round absent any reason to view it other ways. Just because I default this way does not mean I'm dogmatic about my belief in these issues.

Theory: I don't mind it but don't run bad theory, it will make me sad. Overall -- good theory is clear, specific, comparative, thought-out, and (I like to think) sincere. Specifically -- make your theory arguments structured (I find the Interp, Violation, Standards, Voter structure effective), explain to me why your voter is a voter, and why to vote down your opponent (if that's the impact you want).

Intervention: I do my best to avoid intervention. I will intervene if neither debater has done sufficient work for me to make a decision. I will intervene and not vote on arguments I don't understand. Most importantly, though -- I will intervene and NOT vote on arguments that are unwarranted, even if they are conceded. As such, it is in your best interest to make well-developed arguments, in addition to making the warrant's for all of your arguments extremely clear.

Calling Evidence: I try to avoid calling evidence, especially if it was a matter of clarity during the speeches, since i sympathize for your opponent who will not have the opportunity to read it after the round. However, when evidence is contested for it's contents I will call it. It's best if you give me analysis regarding the content -- i.e. tell me why it doesn't say something it should have, or how your opponent is misrepresenting it, rather than yelling at me to "call this card after the round."

Extensions: Important. Need to be full -- claim, warrant, impact. Don't lie in your extensions, I will check.

Speaker points: I try to average a 28.

If you have questions email me at wynn.cory@gmail.com. ||