Woodhead,+Tom

Tom Woodhead Judging info (Debate coach, St. Vincent De Paul high school, former coach of James Logan High and Damien High).

Ok, Ok... Time to update my 12 year old philosophy (it no longer has the deterrent effect of being old and out of date now that so many teams have had experience with me judging them).

"Shell Version" -Do not make obviously offensive arguments (racism, sexism etc...) Be polite and respectful to each other. -I rarely call cards (I will if there is a dispute about what the card says and I can not remember) -I want to be part of the e-mail chain though (headofthewood@gmail.com), this is a speech doc only e-mail so send questions to a different address (twoodhead@svhs-pet.org) -Speed is fine but I will not yell clear so mumble at your own risk -I will vote on theory -I will vote for critical arguments -I will vote on framework -I try not to intervene (some people may call it tech over truth but I evaluate the round based on what the debaters say as much as possible, I will not ignore an argument because it is on the "wrong part" of the flow) -I default on policy maker (weigh impacts) and competing interpretations for theory but will use whatever framing or paradigm a team suggests if they can win it is better and explain how I should use it. -I do not speak any language other than English fluently -I do not count speech time to send cards but be reasonable

Additional Thoughts

Who am I? I competed for 4 years in policy debate at James Logan High School (a famous speech school with an emerging policy team, directed by the world famous Tommie Lindsey Jr.). I was reasonably good (cleared at TOC qual tournaments but never earned a bid) and read both policy, theory and critiques. I got my coaching start helping out my brother and developed a taste for it. I started coaching around 2000 for James Logan when I helped them earn their first qualification to the TOC as well as a 2nd place finish at NFL nationals (now NDSA). I then went into the private school world and coached at Damien High School where I qualified multiple teams to the TOC each of the two years I worked there (under the legendary Chuck Ballingal, RIP). I then went to work at St. Vincent de Paul High School with Laila McClay. I have qualified teams to the TOC each year since and my teams have developed a reputation as being on the more critical side of debate. My best team earned 8 bids to the TOC and won multiple national level tournaments (shout out to Adam and Julia!). I am a credentialed teacher in the State of California and a committed educator in the debate community. I have a BA in philosophy from UCSC but find myself reading more policy oriented stuff for pleasure.

Notes on certain topics:

Framework- I try not to let my biases influence this debate. The most common error I see teams make in these debates is to not consider impacts and how they should be accessed and weighed against each other. "Debate is a game" is an unwarranted assertion and if this is the extent of your analysis on framework, then the answer "no" is just as persuasive. I vote for framework and for non topical critical affs frequently so you all have a fair chance at my ballot in these debates.

Critiques- These are fine. Not a big fan of links of omission. Alts are important and not to be excluded without some careful thought. Contextualization is very important for links and solvency takeout/turn arguments. Framing is also very important for impact comparison and I will default on letting the aff weigh their impacts until the negative explains why they should not. Role of the ballot could be very important but it rarely seems to come down to that. Do NOT assume that I am familiar with your K lit (even if I am, I will not do the work for you and I will require you to explain everything you want me to evaluate at the end of the round).

Theory- I will vote for this if you have a clear interpretation, the other teams violates it and win that it is best. I am not persuaded by reasonability arguments typically (most of the good reasons for reasonability are better articulated as standards for your counter interpretation). I think theory, framework and topicality are the same type of argument (framework seems to be mostly about topicality "impacts" like fairness and education).

Speed- I can not flow multiple analytic arguments when they are read consecutively. This is especially true for overviews. I will not yell "clear" so be careful.

"Shell Version"

- I am cool with everything that is not clearly offensive (offensive meaning racist, sexist, etc...) - I rarely call cards - Speed is fine - Default on policy maker - Will vote on any clear theory argument - You may change my paradigms/frameworks/voting prefs in the round with arguments - I try not to intervene - Be respectful - I do not speak any language other than English with any fluency

"Extensions"

Experience: debated 4yrs in high school, coach of policy debate for 8+ years. Hundreds of rounds judging experience at national tournaments.

Style COMPARE ARGUMENTS! Don't just say why you are good and they are bad, explain why you are better than them. "Even if..." is a magical phrase to be employed to my great satisfaction in rebuttals. Don't get so lost in the line-by-line that you forget the big picture. Framework, voters, and paradigms are very important. If you can not beat them within their framework, you must replace their framework with one of your own and make comparative arguments to win it.

Framework I default* on policy maker but it is up to the debaters to argue what paradigm/framework I should be using. I am open to any arguments (as long as they are not clearly offensive) if they are well explained and supported.

Kritiks I am open for all arguments and frameworks (do not assume I am familiar with your authors, even if I have seen the same K many times, every one has a different interpretation of how these arguments function in debate rounds). Make sure you put in work on arguments you want to win. Some of my defaults: if the K has no uniqueness (as most do not), there should be some kind of alternative ("reject the aff" can work, but explain why). I will default on letting the aff weigh the advantages against the K unless the neg can explain why I shouldn't (i.e. no fiat, discourse comes first etc...). If the K turns the case or precludes solvency I want an example that is more specific and less abstract when possible. I am open to preformative contradiction arguments as long as you put in work on them, not just extending an undercovered tagline.

Theory I want to hear a clear violation/interpretation if I am going to vote on theory, and I will vote on theory (I include T as theory). I default on competing interpretations, and I rarely go for reasonability arguments because I find it hard to distinguish between what is reasonable or not (so if you want to go for this arg, put some work into it and define what makes something reasonable and how your aff fits in, and why reasonability is a good interpretation). If you are aff, please respond to jurisdiction, a priori, and other weak voters on T because I end up voting on these arguments much more than I would like.

Speed Speed is fine as long as debaters are clear, I will not indicate if I am not following, so slur and bumble at your own risk. If I miss arguments, they will not be evaluated. My ability to process your speed is inversely related to the proximity of the round time to my sleeping time multiplied by the number of cups of coffee I have gulped down that day (morning and evening, not so good). The best indicator of this ability is the darkness of the bags under my eyes and the effort level I need to keep my eyes open. Rapid-fire taglines with no clear breaks for numbering are impossible to flow and I will not call frontlines/blocks after the round, so slow down if you have multiple consecutive analytics (that means your 10-point condo good block might take 25 seconds instead of 15, so choose your theory blocks wisely). Also, complex analysis with jargon like that found in may kritik debates merits a slower explanation. Do not assume that I am familiar with the analysis in your cards because everyone has their own take on these positions and I want to be clear on yours.

Card calling I will usually make my decision by looking at my flow and reflecting on your 2nd rebuttal analysis on key points. I tend to not call cards after the round, so explain the warrants in your rebuttals. Times when I do call cards: if there is a disagreement about what the card says and I can not remember myself, if I find your card interesting, or when I want to fill out my cites.

Coolness Be respectful. Even confused debaters are still valuable people, try not to be too harsh or arrogant. It may effect your speaks or cause my subconscious to look for a way to drop you in a close round. I can distinguish well reasoned arguments and clash from shallow tag lines and evasion, I do not need your outrage/rudeness to draw my attention your opponents' weaknesses, just your analysis.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Damien High School, James Logan High School, St Vincent De Paul High School

What do I like? I will evaluate all arguments on their merits, and what I like really does not change how I vote, but just for kicks... K's with policy alternatives PIC/DA strats specific to aff cases Unconditional CP's Theory strats that demonstrate in round abuse/ground loss Impact debates and straight turns Creative discourse arguments, K alternatives, and K "perms". (these things make me smile, but they must be done well to get my ballot and you will not earn any lee way by running them)

Key/Legend:

default: what I do when nobody talks about the issue or if I am hopelessly confused, it is easy to take me out of my default positions.