Will+Scott

Will Scott Graduate Assistant at James Madison University Debated for three years for Liberty University

Overview

I debated for three years for Liberty, and now I'm coaching at JMU. I like good debates, be they policy or kritikal or performance or whatever. I like tricky args, and I have no problem voting on the cheap shot. However, most debates are won with good impact calculus and strategic concessions. You're usually gonna be losing something on the flow, and if you're smart enough to realize that and concede the right things and tell me why those losses are outweighed by what you're winning, you're gonna be in a good position. Debaters who take smart chances tend to win more rounds. Going for everything tends to make debates messy and shallow (and difficult to evaluate). I tend to be a very expressive judge, and it will serve you well to keep an eye on me, especially in the 2NR/2AR. I have run every argument and style imaginable, from courts CPs to wipeout, from politics to performance affs, from militarism Ks to hedge good affs. I have some predispositions (which are outlined below), but they are fluid within a given debate. I don't have the best flow in the world, so if you speed unclearly dont be mad if something gets missed. If that means one less card, then you are probably better off for it.

Kritikal/Performance Debates I ran Agamben on the aff and critical race performance on the neg every round my last year of debate. I think that how we view the world is important, as well as the assumptions we make about the world. If you want to question the activity of debate itself, go for it. If you are a 1 off team, do 1 off. If you are a team that does a combination of policy and Ks, do that. Just make sure you can win the framework and theory debate. There is no argument i will reject out of hand, and I believe that debate is a great place to test the philisophical ideas we bring into the world and into our lives outside of debate. If you're the kind of team that doesn't do card throwdowns, then don't fall for getting into a card throwdown. Good analysis and debate can beat a pile of quickly read experts. Passion is important, and don't be afraid to show passion in a debate. Analytic debate and personal experience are just as important as the words of some expert on lived experience. We all have a perspective, a history, and a culture, and those things do not need to be sacrificed in order to debate. Don't feel like you have to throw in a plan text you're not gonna defend just to get leverage on the framework debate (unless you're running the plan text as a critical interrogation or something). Basically, if you're gonna read a plan text with your non-traditional or kritikal aff, have a reason for doing it (not just to get away from the framework debate).

Note to teams that reject the flow: I have not judged these debates yet, so here is what I will do: If both teams agree to reject the flow before the round, I will not flow. If one team wishes to reject the flow and the other wants me to flow, I will flow during the round, but I will decide based off the arguments in the round whether to use the flow as part of my decision calculus.

"Clash of Civ" Debates If you think you're gonna get into a lot of clash debates, I'm probably a judge you want. I really enjoy watching these debates.I think a well thought out framework vs non-traditional debate round can be a work of art. I think that framework rounds are important to understanding how the actions that we perform in debate are important to us, be it through understanding the political realm or through understanding our personal identity/subjectivity/lack of such/whatever your important discussion is. You need to be telling me how your discussion is important to the debate community within one round and outside of one round. Poorly executed framework rounds that are non-responsive blocks will make me very sad. Everywhere you go in life people will ask you why you believe something, and "that's what the rules say" or "that's the way everyone else does it" is not going to fly. Why learn to make bad arguments now?

Policy Debates Be clear with what your plan does and doesn't do. I think if you're gonna try to play the traditional debate game, you should have a plan text that defends the action presented. You should be within the confines of the resolution. I'm comfortable with whatever CPs, DAs, etc. you want to run in front of me, as long as you can justify the theory behind them. For example, if you want to run 3 conditional worlds, you need to be able to explain why those worlds are important. Don't just run throw away arguments. Everything should have strategic value and you should be able to go for it in the 2nr if the debate leans that way. That being said, you shouldn't go for multiple worlds in the 2nr. Kick what's most strategic and make sure you win on what you're ahead on. Also, do not be afraid to go for the cheap shot (ASPEC, etc), as long as you can win it and why it's important. I'm not of those judges that "won't vote on the cheap shot". Even in policy vs policy rounds, teams should be willing to move away from trying to just outcard their opponents. Reading more cards with the same warrants as cards that are already read is not very persuasive to me. If you read a card that says "more ev", or anything along these lines as the tag, it will hurt your speaks.

Jumping/tech issues By popular demand, this is my policy on jumping and tech issues. I do not take time to jump the speech as long as there is no abusing the situation. If your Word crashes, I will give you a chance to revive it and save your document. If your computer crashes, I will give you a chance to start your computer and save your document. If your document doesn't revive and you have to rebuild your speech, that is prep. I know this is harsh, but you take a risk by having your whole speech on the computer. Paper teams don't get to stop the prep to rewrite their analytics if they spill water on their paper or to reprint their evidence if it gets messed up. If there is a serious tech issue you can't resolve, don't be afraid to ask for help.