Wilson,+Bill

Coach at University School of Nashville 2012- Assistant Coach at MBA 2000-2001

Give me your best arguments and tell me why they matter.

I appreciate well structured speeches. This applies to performance and policy alike. Debaters need to tell me what evidence/arguments are most important for resolving the round, and why. I appreciate a good overview. Tell me how, even in light of the opposition's best argument, you still win the round. Give me a balanced assessment, and try to write my RFD for me.

I like it when debaters think about the probability of the entirety of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain to me the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Cross Ex: I pay attention. Debaters can establish credibility on important issues and earn extra points at the margins through an exceptional cross examination. I feel the best debaters use cross ex to frame evidence and foreshadow their endgame.

 I reward clarity of speech with higher points.

Critical Aff: I am open to this approach. If you don't advocate USFG and it becomes a framework round, you will have to persuade me why not using the USFG is a necessity, and how there are still limits to the discussion. On this last point I think it helps if your advocacy is germane to the resolution. While framework or topicality is a viable negative strategy, I would much prefer to hear a debate about the given case/advocacy, and I will give the negative a lot of latitude in these debates if they choose a more interesting approach.

Topicality: I vote on well argued violations. T debates need not devolve into questions of "abuse" but ultimately boil down to limits. I prefer literature/expert based interpretations of the resolution. Negatives do well to provide case lists and to articulate why their interpretation isn't an arbitrary line to exclude the affirmative. For affirmatives to win reasonability, they must provide a qualified counter interpretation and make a compelling argument for why theirs is a quality/predictable limit for the topic.

Theory: Please get beyond the tag lines and don't assume I know or am bound to any particular convention. Be logical and reasonable, and better yet, creative within those bounds. In most cases I would prefer to reject the argument not the team, unless clearly explained and impacted otherwise. I would much rather make a decision on more substantive issues in the round.

Smart, warranted arguments can have A LOT of weight on my flow. If you expose the absurdities of their internal link chains, you can get to minimal risk even without a carded response.

I prefer your CP's have a specific solvency advocate. "We fiat x does the plan" without carded solvency is not compelling and leads to boring debates about stilted net benefits. If you have authors saying why the POTUS or the states should do their plan, that is a different matter. Proceed.

Politics: I find logical policy maker a compelling AFF argument.

Cheating: Now that I can follow along with your speech docs, I have noticed card clipping happens more than it should, which is never. If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will say something since I will give you the benefit of the doubt but will not have given you credit for reading the card. If it is egregious or persistent, you will likely lose, your points will suffer, and I will contact your coach immediately with a description of what I witnessed.