Rains,+Will

I try to appreciate all kinds of debate arguments. When I debated I ran lots of different policy and critical strategies.

Most debates I've seen come down to evaluating whether or not the implementation of a topical plan is desirable. That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to evaluate the debate differently, but it does mean that you should explain and justify your position if you want me to decide differently. Basically, I will try to be a flexible judge and adapt to the circumstances of the debate. If you've got questions for me, feel free to ask.

Prep time ends when you have your speech on a flash drive, or once you have sent the email with the evidence. I will not stop prep for you to save your speeches.

Debates with clash are good debates. You will be rewarded for specific, intelligent argumentation.

I try to keep an open mind in each debate and I will always listen to your arguments. That being said, here's a collection of stuff I have noticed about myself as a judge. These are general tendencies, not absolute rules.

--I tend not to read much evidence after the round unless there's a compelling reason that I need to, like if the debaters refused to compare the arguments against each other, or if there's a conflict about two ways of interpreting a piece of evidence. --I have a pretty high threshold for voting on Topicality. I tend to lean aff if the aff has a reasonably debatable interpretation of the topic. --throwaway procedural arguments annoy me. If you read stuff like ASPEC, OSPEC, or USFG=Mexico, I will feel like you are wasting my time. Caveat: I think ASPEC is a real argument if there is a significant literature base about the given affirmative that makes the agent debate important. (The elmore card alone does not make a significant literature base). -- I don't kick negative advocacies after the debate unless the negative tells me that's how I should decide. So if the counterplan is in the 2NR, I will assume that you are going for it unless you tell me that I should also consider the world of the status quo. --Specificity is almost always more persuasive than generic analysis. Even if you've only got generic evidence about an issue, specific applications of that evidence to the debate make the argument much more persuasive to me. --I don't think I've ever seen a politics da that made logical sense. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read politics in front of me if that's your thing, it just means the aff can make a lot of progress by pointing out the gaping holes in the logic. --I think conditionality is good for debate, yet I have found myself voting on conditionality more often than I would like to because the negative doesn't debate the theory well. (please don't read this as "you should go for conditionality bad", but if you need to, you obviously can). -- I think process counterplans like consult X or condition on Y are bad for debate, yet I have found myself voting for them more often than I would like because the affirmative doesn't debate them well. (please don't read this as "go for abusive counterplans", though if you need to, you obviously can). --Framework arguments that amount to "you should completely ignore the other team's arguments" seem silly to me. I would rather you explain why the content of your argument calls the content of their argument into question than just say "framework means you don't get to weigh your aff" or "framework means all Ks should go away". -- I think framework is usually not a strategic negative argument when debating against affirmatives inclined to impact turn framework, but if that's your only strategy, I'll listen to it.

You can email me at william.tyler.rains at gmail.com