Anderson,+Andrew

I debated for three years at Westside High School (Omaha, NE). I am currently at the University of Iowa. I have judged a fair amount of tournaments for Iowa City West High School. But this year I have been rather inactive in the debate world.

I don't have too many specific demands for either debater in a given round. And I won't give my individual position on the myriad of debate structures because I prefer a certain fluidity in a round, and don't want to predispose or promulgate any specific debate style. I would like to see each debater provide unique positions and unique analysis of the topic as well as direct and thoughtful counter interpretations and clash. Essentially I would like to see a quality debate.

That being said I don't mind for what, specifically, I see in a round. Theory, kritiks, stock, whatever, I will listen to any argument. Now I think the more abstract your arguments get the more sound they will likely have to be in order to preempt more traditional arguments. So I might listen to any argument, but the crazier it is the more you will likely have to explain/deffend it. I prefer to see the traditional structure of Value and Criterion, but I don't mind other approaches, and depending on the case I might actually prefer it. Essentially if you make a good argument I will vote off of it. If you make a bad argument and I don't vote off of it it isn't because of the type of argument it is because it is simply a bad argument.

What I like to see in a round more than anything is voting issues and a voting road map. In any round the most important thing for each debater to do is to stand back explain what has happened in the round, where they stand on the key issues, why they matter, and more importantly each debater needs to tell me how they think I should evaluate the round. I have my own personal way of evaluating the round, but I will only use that decision making calculus if niether debater provides me with one. It is the job of each debater to tell me what the round is about, tell me in what order I should look at arguments, and how they win the round from that.

The only time in the round where you should talk about winning is during voting issues. The rest of the time please don't concern yourself with the outcome merely concern yourself with the actual debate.

I'm not sure what all else I should include here, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I will try and clarify anything about my paradigm for you.

Last and certainly not least... NO SPEED. Debate should be done at conversational or //slightly// faster than conversational speed. I won't vote you down for speed. But I don't like it and if I can't understand you or you are speaking too fast I simply won't flow your arguments, so it behoves you to speak at a reasonable pace.