Thomas,+Stacey

UPDATED, 8/27/2006

I am the head coach at Hockaday in Dallas, Texas, and the former coach of Stephen F. Austin. I've been coaching for 7 years and judge LD regularly both in my local area and on the national circuit.

Put simply: I like to see debaters who keep control of their position, actually respond to their opponent’s arguments directly, select key issues, and articulate why they matter. Please set a standard, impact back to it explicitly, and weigh. In a muddled round, the cleaner story is likely to win in front of me. I understand the flow game and strategy. Give me a directed decision calculus that levels the voting issues.

I can flow speed and am used to judging faster debates than I sometimes like, but I really do prefer strategic and intellectual debate, which speed sometimes facilitates and sometimes undermines. One change that I have made is that I will not yell “clear” if you are going too fast because I think it intervenes on behalf of a style by assisting faster debaters against slower debaters. We don’t yell “explain” when your rhetoric is confusing. I don’t think I should yell “clear” when you choose a muddled presentation style. I think many kids go faster than necessary and faster than their capacity for clarity (becoming scattered in the process). I, however, understand that speed can be required to advance a complex position given the time limits. Speed in the name of furthering deep discussion or in order to cover when you have to do so is cool. Speed to throw out 100 shallow arguments is not, especially if they are silly. I am also more impressed by an on-case spread that is actually responsive than a ton of off-case stuff. An overview is fine, but there is a point of overload that makes a debate messy and anti-intellectual. I often get asked for the brite line on “silly” (such as acronyms cause genocide) or “overload” (such as two NCs and 3 off). In most real life situations outside a debate round, though, the brite line question has no clear answer. I think most students know when they are going overboard. I try to be open-minded and reasonable to students being empowered in the round as long as they are open-minded and reasonable to the importance of communicating with the audience and allowing for actual intelligent discussion to take place. That said, I tend to dislike the trend in negative strategy to avoid clash. Please address your opponent’s case responsively. Just reading off case or blocks without making the specific case applications is ineffective. Also, I try to flow cards by name, but honestly do not always get the author down, so slow down on names and extend analysis with the card, especially if you are going fast.

While I have noticed the stylistic preferences described above, I do not think there is a "right" way to interpret resolutions and am open to creative approaches/content in addressing the topic. The diversity of ideas keeps LD dynamic and interesting. I think there is value in the traditional approaches to LD and enjoy the innovation of more modern argumentation. I am open to critical arguments, “old” and “new” philosophy, pragmatic approaches, alternative forms of casing, etc. I am just as likely to vote for a traditional debater as an innovative debater, so do not worry if you are not trendy. What is most important is that you understand what you are doing, why you are doing it, and that you are able to defend this approach. In terms of kritiks, I tend to find ones inspired by the resolutional issues more persuasive than generic ones that can be read on any topic to shut the affirmative out of the round. That said, I have voted for all kinds of arguments given the round at hand and how they were explained/applied. If you advance a creative or complex position, I think you seem more sincere in the intellectual endeavor if you try to further understanding and clarification (especially in CX) rather than employing avoidance and confusion tactics.

I am still trying to figure out what I think about theory debate. I have noticed that theory to game or to censor certain literature/positions (rather than to check actual abuse) tends to get less consideration from me. I will listen to theory and RVI’s, especially in rounds where debaters are experimenting or ground has been skewed in a way that calls for it, but I prefer arguments about the issues. If you cry abuse when there really isn’t any or tell me to vote on education when you are being anti-educational, I most likely won't vote on this level. I do not like to pull the trigger on questionable theory arguments, especially in a round that has a dominant winner otherwise. If your opponent is being abusive, you need to explain how; otherwise the complaints seem like whining. With most theory debates, time would be better spent giving substantive answers. However, I have found some theory based rounds highly engaging. It comes down to the purpose, investment, and intelligence used in the approach. Feel free to ask for clarification on this before a round.

Finally, I do not like rude or pretentious people. There is a difference between being funny/clever and being condescending. Everybody deserves respect regardless of experience, skill level, and region. I especially cannot stand it when more experienced debaters or ones with reputations are obnoxious to younger debaters or ones who are lesser known. You should take the round seriously no matter whom you are debating. I strongly believe that debate is first and foremost about education and personal growth and that the community should be open and inviting to those who want to participate. I don’t think people “destroy” debate by the arguments they run or that the worst thing a kid can do is run a nontopical kritik, or run something "old school" and uncool, for that matter. I think the worse thing anybody can do in the activity is lead another person to want to quit something they love or from which they can learn due to their mean spiritedness or arrogance.

Speaker Points: I used to be a point fairy but have now opened my range to 25-30. Speaker points tend to be based more on a person’s ability to strategize the flow, avoid muddle, be responsive, provide a clear decision calculus, and present sophisticated arguments rather than other presentation issues; however, fluency does factor. Lately, I tend to give 25-26 to average debates, 27 to good debates, 28-29 to excellent debates, and 30 to outstanding performances. I am not stingy with my high points if you do a solid job but am more willing to give lower points than in the past. I will give much lower points if you are rude. Have fun (humor is fine), but don’t be mean.