Werner,+Andy

I am currently an assistant coach for Hockaday in Dallas. I used to debate at Strake Jesuit (I graduated in '06)

I don't presume unless an argument is made indicating I should - instead, if there is no offense at the end of the round, I do the least work possible to construct some.

I have a fairly high standard for clarity of argumentation (I default to not voting for something I don't understand)

I need some sort of evaluative mechanism from which to evaluate the round. As long as it is both clear and warranted, I tend to be fine with most kinds of standards.

It is almost a given that you will get a 27 in speaks - you have to make me enjoy the round to get higher, and annoy me to get lower. While I am somewhat easily annoyed, I am rarely pleased to be judging a debate round.

Three peculiarities: First, if you run an argument telling me to vote against someone because their position has some unacceptable consequence (e.g. it justifies genocide), without providing a framework from which I should judge that consequence unacceptable (i.e. without providing an argument that substantively disputes the position) I will not vote for it. You are asking me to intervene against an argument if I find it unacceptable. I don't.

Second, I do not like theory. That said, I will vote for it if it is well justified and inadequately responded to. I tend, however, to have a relatively low threshold for what counts as an adequate response. Also, I don't care if it's used as a strategic tool or if there is substantive abuse - those kinds of issues are irrelevant for me in your decision to run the theory (though clearly relevant if someone argues they are not really being abusive, or they are only potentially abuse, etc.). Finally, if in the initial speech (AC or NC) you don't appeal to standards external to a truth testing paradigm, in my opinion that means you are tacitly accepting that paradigm. If you then in the next speech (1AR or NR) advocate theory without having some justification for your advocacy shift (e.g. your opponent runs theory), I will regard the argument as new and won't vote for it.

Third, I like grand strategic maneuvers and highly technical discussions of the interactions between arguments. I also favor commitment to a strategy. If you intend to get higher than a 27, you should do those things.

Andy