Yates,+Brandon

Nobody can be truly tabula rasa, but I try my best to be that way. I debated for 8 years more or less straight (I took off a semester in college), judged occasionally for a while after that, then was not involved in the activity for several years. Having recently come back to the activity, I am somewhat concerned with the quality of certain arguments and with some of what I consider devolutions in general in-round behaviors. One thing that surprises me is that flowing speed after many years away was not as difficult as I thought it might be. Here are some points to consider if I judge you or your team: 1. Clarity is always important. Judges shouldn't even have to mention this. This is still a communication activity and debaters who combine research and understanding with clarity of speech (regardless of speed) will be rewarded. I may warn you once, but that is it. 2. Though I quite like kritiks and other philosophical sorts of arguments (one of my majors was philosophy), I do set the bar somewhat high and find that many...most teams don't run very convincing versions of these. Be careful running kritiks of process and then running counterplans that link to whatever you are critiquing. These don't exist in separate worlds. 3. I love good T debates, but the burden of proof is obviously high for a negative to win this issue. You will likely have to go for it solely, but that depends. 4. Question negative fiat. That may seem old school and I ran counterplans constantly, but there are really persuasive postitions that the negative should not be given the assumption of fiat. So bring that into your counter-counterplan strategy as I am open to this sort of argument. 5. I prefer cross-ex not be open per se. Questions need to be answered by someone, but the initial answer, or attempt should be from the person who gave the speech. It is important for me to know if you know what you are talking about and for the debaters it is helpful to learn to think on your toes.

Aside from these suggestions, good debate is good debate. I rule out nothing and will listen to any sort of argument. It is the job of the debaters to provide the framework that I should use to evaluate. This could be utilitarian, deontological, best tie...whatever. And don't be rude!