Bennett,+Ryan

I will attempt to make this as logically organized as possible, as I am sure that people do not want to have to read a solid paragraph with no structure which describes less than relevant aspects of the way I view debate rounds. Note that the majority of this is flexible, the round is there for you too debate, and if you give me good reason too view it in a certain way, I probably will unless otherwise noted.

Experience: I debated nationally and on the local Dallas area circuit for 4 years at Southlake Carroll high school, attending all manner of tournaments. Therefore I have sufficient experience in UIL, TFA, NFL, and TOC styles for you to be comfortable debating in a manner (this does not mean argumentation, but appearance, speaking etc.) you are comfortable with. I graduated in 2009. As a result, this may not be complete, and will be updated throughout the year. Keep checking if i judge you at another tournament, it may have changed.

General views: Debate is, foremost, an educational competition with the express purpose of using interactive discourse on prescribed issues to test a certain idea. This indicates that arguments must deal directly with the topic unless justified to do otherwise, and that I refuse to presume affirmative or negative, but instead defer towards the debater who is presenting a better (by rational standards unless others are given) justification for their position. This also indicates that explicitly "immoral" will not be disregarded (without a debater giving me a reason), as they have no direct effect on rational argumentation on face. That being said, your speaker points will be lowered unless their is an educational purpose to your discourse. So if you are using offensive rhetoric, being sexist, etcetera, you will quite possibly get a 20 and a severe lecture directly after the round. This also indicates that I do not assume the validity of theory arguments, but that will be addressed in the theory section. Finally, I have a high threshold for extensions. If you are not extending a claim, developed and logical warrant, and impact, I can not evaluate the extension. If an argument is not fully warranted, therefore, it is not an argument.

New Arguments: if an argument is new, or evaluated in a new way, I will disregard said argument unless given a legitimate reason not too.

Default paradigm: I do not use a default paradigm by which to evaluate in the common sense, so you do not have to worry about me adhering to a "truth testing" or "offense defense" paradigm etcetera. Instead, I expect rational (or some other mode of) justifications as to why whatever way you are evaluating the round is correct, and comparison between your and your opponents framing of the round. If neither debater does this, than I will vote for whoever is doing a comparatively better job of interacting arguments and presenting a rational, cohesive position, but you will both undoubtedly receive extremely low speaker points if I must do so. IMPORTANT CHANGE: I know longer presume that the round must be dictated by linear conceptions of rationality. As such, if debaters indicate that they wish the round to function more as theater or event, so long as this is supported by their arguments, I will accept the role of adjudicator in an aesthetic, existentialist, absurdist, etc. paradigm.

Presentation: Speaker points are based on a combination of strategy and verbal aesthetic presentation. Style of dress is of little consequence to me, you may wear what ever you would like, and sit down or whatever makes you comfortable. I do require, with no exceptions, that you be polite to your opponent (regardless of how they treat you), and respectful to all other individuals in the room (so long as they are respecting you). Other aspects of speaking are straightforward, speed is of little consequence so long as you are clear, but this also means that you must signpost more explicitly, speak clearly, and provide fully warranted arguments, speed cannot be an excuse to drop large numbers of one sentence analytics unless you are the one debater in the world who somehow develops arguments that quickly. I assure you, however, you are not. Whatever your speed, my clarity requirement will proportionately adjust. Also, explicit signposting is a necessity whatever speed you are going. All of these will be reflected in speaker points (that being said, i give slightly above average speaker points it seems).

Case structure: whatever you want to do is completely acceptable, so long as it makes sense.

Specific positions

K's: I ran K's frequently during my career and consider them to be very interesting and beneficial to the framing of discursive interaction. One might go so far as to say that they are my favorite type of position. This does not mean you win for running a K, it means that if you do so in a way that does not make sense, or misuse arguments you stole from policy backfiles hoping that your opponent and judge will not notice/be confused and you will win, you are wrong. As I said, all arguments must be warranted. It does mean, however, that I will not ignore any K so long as it is warranted. If you want to tell me that your opponents sentence structure creates an oppressive aesthetic, or that the action of the AC causes us to forget the nature of death experiences I am fine with that. So discourse, ethics, impact, etc. K's are fine. That being said, please be sure that you delineate between and explain the function of pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts. I frequently fine that all of this is more clear if you add framework before or after the K, but that is by no means necessary.

Theory: I have no problem with theory, but have a mid to high threshold for warrants in theory argumentation. If you want me to vote against your opponent based on subjective communal standards, do a good job explaining them and making the abuse clear. If you are running potential abuse, the threshold is significantly higher. I do not require a shell structure for theory, but all necessary arguments must be made and linked regardless of the format. Other random thoughts on theory: you must extend all component necessary for me to vote. this includes the voter. i am fine with RVI's and other forms of offense generated on theory. Responses to theory can not be disregarded because you think you are winning the abuse story, do not be the person who loses because they ignore simplistic responses to developed voters because you think you do not have to prove fairness is important, it can be simply explained, do so. Theory is not self defeating because you have to take time to answer it, causing time skew. this argument is incredibly illogical. do not make this argument.layer the theory debate (counter inter, counter standards, we meets, weighing, etc.) i am compelled by threshold arguments on voters. "they must say why i am unfair enough. I am unfair, but not enough to vote on"

Counter plans: fine, but please make sure they are competitive, solve, and have an explicit plan text. if there is no plan text, we do not know what you are advocating, and thus it is not a counter plan.

Critical argumentation: I am open, as I said, to any manner of argumentation and am personally a fan of more "progressive" and "critical" positions. There are three main things you should draw from this. First, I will not throw out arguments because "judge, we do not even know what this means." I probably do. Secondly, if you are making unwarranted critical arguments, miss-cutting an author, or straight up lying about an argument, you will probably not get away with it. Finally, if you cannot explain the position succinctly in CX, your opponent can not answer it, and I will probably penalize you severely.

Anything else you want to do is completely fine so long as it is 1. Rational or justified explicitly otherwise. 2. Presented in a polite manner

feel free to ask me questions, I would rather you ask than not know