Wilson,+Cameron

Name: Cameron Wilson School Affiliation: Millard West/Millard North Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 5 Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4 Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0, I’ve judged a few tournaments of LD Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 If you are a coach, what events do you coach? What is your current occupation? Student

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery I can only type 35 words per minute, so beyond a certain point I won’t be able to flow your speed, although I can hear it. For example if your case is 4.5 pages(12pt font, double spaced) odds are I’ll miss a flowing a little bit of it. Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Tie up the most important arguments line by line, but other than quickly telling me why unimportant args are unimportant, leave them out. Role of the Final Focus: Big Picture Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Definitely don’t bring up an argument in the final focus that you only ever mentioned in your case and say that it should be voted on. Carry them through most of the speeches, and if you had to drop something in summary, tell me why it’s okay (for example, quickly argue that you dropped it because you won it) Topicality: I’ll treat it on a case by case basis. I like wild arguments that talk about how the resolution’s affirmation/negation has far reaching and unrelated impacts, but tie it back to the resolution. An example of non topicality for me is if the resolution was about gun control and you have a case that is completely about organ harvesting with zero mention of control. Plans: I have no idea how this would ever come up. If you create a parallel plan to the resolution and say something like “instead of the arguing for the resolution we’re arguing for this plan”, I will allow the other team to just say you are being non-topical. Kritiks: Not convincing in public forum, not interested in hearing it. Like if your case is a Kritik that says I need to vote for you to send a message to the national speech and debate association to instigate change, I’ll probably just ignore it all. Flowing/note-taking: I try to flow literally every single point and argument made, but I can only type so fast. Sometimes if I miss something I’ll go up and edit the flow after your speech if I remember what you said. Giving speeches in order that you have flowed is very easy for me to follow and preferred. Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I didn’t know argument/style were in opposition to each other. I value argument I suppose, but if your style is vicious meanness or extreme mumbling then I’ll give horrible speaker points and maybe stop flowing. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: Yes If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No, but in my experience most of the time second speaking team doesn’t cover both it means they’re going to drop a lot of their case and cede many arguments. It is highly highly recommended Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Not unless they’re brought up in a speech. It should be easy to include them in a speech though—just very quickly summarize/remind me of what happened in the crossfire and I’ll put it on my flow. If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here: I will intentionally naively believe a lot of evidence within reasonable grounds, in order to make teams address each others arguments. Don’t get into a debate over statistical methods or other hyper evidence focused discussions, keep it abstract. I WILL NOT LISTEN TO LONG DISCUSSIONS OF STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, it’s a waste of time. If both teams have perfectly conflicting evidence, its best to try to win on a different argument or use a abstract moral/argumentative framing to discount the evidence portion of disagreement.