Ivory,+Andrew

My name is Andrew Ivory, and I currently am a freshman and North Central Texas College. I debated for 3 years at Guyer High School in Denton, Tx, and here are my paradigms for CX Debate-

For the most part you will find me to be a Stock Issues judge more than anything else, but here are my philosophies on the following for CX:


 * Topicality** - Perfectly fine reason for the negative to win a debate in my reason, as long as the negative has run a complete topicality. Running an incomplete topicality leaves me with an incomplete argument which I will not vote for.


 * Speed** - Speed is not so much of an issue for me, but when it becomes incomprehensible and you begin to slur your words, I will drop my pen, and simply not flow. When someone talks so fast that they simply begin to speak a foreign language, as opposed to actually debating, then not only does the opposing team have a hard time trying to determine what it is you are arguing, but so do I, in which case your arguments simply will fail to see the surface of my flow. Like I previously stated, I will drop my pen if speed gets out of hand, so watch for it.


 * CPs** - CPs are perfectly fine as long as they are run effectively and correctly. Running a Inherency argument followed by a CP is not my idea of being run effective, simply because its contradictory, and when it comes to the flow, if I am not told which to go with, then they cancel each other out and neither one really has any weight. Otherwise, it is a perfectly reasonable point to vote on, just tell me why and show me why it defeats your opponents. Also tying it to the stock issues, seeing as i lean more to the stock issues to begin with, obviously will hold more weight with me and help pull this argument in your favor.


 * DA's** - Simply one of the best things to run, just have everything there when run, provide some extensions, and don't run a general DA unless you have the right uniqueness.


 * K's** - The kritik.... not too fond of these, and if I do happen to be your judge, I wouldn't advise running this. It is my belief that CX is to debate a real life issue, to use real life evidence that pertains to the status quo, and arguing about the idea behind the topic and how your opponents fail to uphold it, is just avoiding the meaning of debate to begin with. Be warned, I will flow these, but it definitely will not be something that I solely vote on, nor will I use it as a deciding factor on the ballot.


 * Speaker Points** - These will be handed out to whoever I believe spoke the best, and for that matter the worst. No hard feelings, but thats how they are supposed to be done, award the most to the individual who speaks the best, and the same goes for the shorter end of the stick. Unfortunate but hey, it happens.


 * Aff Case** - Seeing as this predominately fixates on the negative arguements, I thought i should add this for an affirmative team to see my interests in not only the 1AC but also the 2AC, 1AR, and so on. Inventive cases are entertaining and also give the negative a harder time to rebuttal, simply because lets face it, there is a lot of camp information out there. Having some wild evidence that the negative either refutes vaguely, or fails to refute will obviously help you on the ballot. Extenstions on the Affirmative case are a must, without which, you're just debating with the same stuff that you presented in the 1AC.

In the long run guys, just have fun, stay on topic, and debate the topic. Debate is about learning and improving your speaking skills, so do it.