Dodds,+Kelsey

I debated LD for 3 years and CX for 2 years at Crowley High School, TX on the TFA and UIL circuit. The 2012-2013 season will be #|my first year out as a judge, however I have been a student judge in my years of high school.

**Speed** is OK as long as it isn’t lightning fast and it is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If you are uclear or are going too fast for me to keep up, I'll yell "clear" or "slow" twice. After that, you're on your own.
 * __IMPORTANT STUFF__**

I do not have a default paradigm. I’ll evaluate any argument within reason, but please try and stay away from the crazy “Let us kill half the population for whatever reason” type of arguments. Those make me extremely uncomfortable and I really don’t like to vote on any of that. Debate is about learning new and practical things, not who can come up with the most ridiculous argument to win the round. I like the technicality of debate. That is what I prefer to vote off of since voting any other way would put me in a position of potentially interfering with the round, and NO ONE likes to do that. Please try and keep the voting issues on the more technical side of the debate round so as to keep the round as fair as possible for everyone.
 * Please support your arguments with evidence of some kind.** This includes logical premises AS LONG AS THEY ARE CLEAR. I cannot stress enough how important clarity is in a round.


 * __Theory and Topicality:__**
 * I do enjoy listening to a good theory/T debate.__ I default to a reasonability paradigm since this is about the rules of debate, and rules need to be reasonable. __
 * **__I DO NOT LIKE COUNTER INTERP THEORY.__** Please please //please// don't run that in front of me. It's all just a race to the bottom and I'll end up getting lost in all the different interpretations and will probably make it a wash theory debate. So for your sake, don't run Counter Interps.
 * When it comes to the voters of the theory/T shells, TELL ME WHY IT MATTERS!!! Don’t just say “vote on education and fairness” without saying why they are important or how they #|apply to the round, that is extremely annoying and I won’t vote on it. I really don’t even care what kind of voters you have as long as they make sense and are supported with evidence/language/etc.
 * Crystallization and weighing on the Theory/T debate is just as important (if not more important) than on the substance debate. Make the abuse (or potential abuse) story very clear.
 * RVI’s are OK. Just make it clear and have very good reasoning behind it.
 * Finally, don’t run theory for the sake of strategy, especially when it’s a bad argument. Run genuine arguments for the sake of debate.


 * Kritiks** are a good thing to run in front of me as long as they meet the following criteria:
 * They make sense and that the argument is clear.
 * THEY ARE GENUINE KRITIKS. I absolutely hate wishy-washy kritik debates. They annoy me. You can run general K’s in the round. What I mean by wishy-washy K debate is something made up and only kind of supported by evidence. You need to tell me why this argument is important for the community. The link story needs to be clear.
 * Explain why your framework comes first. Again, be CLEAR.
 * One thing I don't like is Ontology. Especially when it's run badly. I would personally prefer you not to run it in front of me but if you need to, I'll listen to it. Just make sure you tell me what kind of Ontology you're using.

I will listen to Policy arguments such as Politics, DA’s, etc.
 * Evidence comparison is important.
 * I’ll call for evidence in rounds if need be. I’ll do my best to have the least intervention at that point.
 * Compare your internal link stories. I.e. if one debater says "heg key to global warming" and the other says "soft power key to global warming," I will almost always vote for the debater who better explains why they have a better/stronger internal link.

__** IMPORTANT INFO ON VOTING **__
 * Do not present morally bankrupt arguments. Do NOT tell me suffering is good or some other bogus argument. I refuse to support such nonsense in debate. I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE FOR IT. THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT OPTION AND GARUNTEED LOW SPEAKS.
 * DO NOT BE RUDE. I swear if you make someone cry or something similar, I’m voting you down. Period. That is the one thing I absolutely will not tolerate.
 * Don’t present offensive/discriminatory/racist arguments. That will almost certainly guarantee a loss and extremely low speaks indefinitely.

Speaker Points are based off of clarity, argumentation, and consistency with my paradigm in the round. The lowest I will give is a 27 unless you seriously offend me for any of the above-referenced reasons. The better you meet my standards, the better your speaks.
 * __OTHER LESS IMPORTANT STUFF__**

DO NOT DO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU LIKE SPEAKER POINTS:


 * Present morally bankrupt arguments. Do NOT tell me suffering is good or some other bogus argument. I refuse to support such nonsense in debate. I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE FOR IT. THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT OPTION AND GARUNTEED LOW SPEAKS.
 * Blippiness
 * Present new arguments. I won’t evaluate them either.
 * LYING. This would include miscut evidence, switching advocacies in the middle of the round, shadiness of any kind (like extending prestandards without it being clarified in the 1AC/NC)
 * Making bad theory/T arguments against stock cases.

If you're going to extend an argument as being "prestandard" or "preclusive" in the 1AR/2NR, the implication of that argument should be clear in the 1AC/1NC. For example, if the 1AR intends to extend a definition to preclude large chunks of offense, the 1AC should state the utility of that definition. In other words, no shady tricks. 2NR/2AR responses to these arguments WILL NOT be considered new.

Lastly, debate is all about gaining communication skills and learning new things. It is about opening up your mind to new ideas and philosophies, and it will have a huge impact on the rest of your life after high school in ways you may not realize just yet. Your job as a debater is to persuade the audience and inform them with information and different viewpoints on any subject. There is no need to be rude or arrogant in rounds, either to me or your opponent, as you are NOT the universe’s gift to debate. I don’t care who you are or where you come from, EVERYONE is equally valid in my eyes. If you make good arguments, you will have good rewards. If you make bad arguments or are being a jerk, you’ll suffer consequences outlined above. If you have any additional questions, please don’t hesitate to ask me before rounds. Good luck!