Gustavson,+Sam

Sam Gustavson C.E. Byrd H.S. class of 2014 Freshman at Baylor University 2014-2015 Affiliations: C.E. Byrd, Caddo Magnet

I know most of the people who read these aren't looking to learn every thought I have about debate, most of you are reading this quickly before a debate or while doing prefs, so I'll keep this short.

Thesis: Say whatever you want in front of me. I think debate should be about the debaters. Don't debate differently in front of me, just do what you're best at. Of course I have biases that influence the way I evaluate debates, everyone does. But when judging, I will attempt to be objective and evaluate the round based on the arguments presented by both sides. Read a politics DA, an aff without a plan, topicality/framework, a large structural criticism, I don't care. If you debate it well, I will evaluate it as such. If you debate it poorly, I will evaluate it as such.

That said, here are some things I think:

Theory: I think most theoretical objections, with the exception of condo, are a reason to reject the argument not the team. I can be inclined to think differently if you can prove why the mere introduction of an argument into a debate is a reason the other team should lose. That will probably require substantial investment in the argument throughout the debate, and not just a blippy extension.

Clipping: If sufficient proof is presented to me that someone is intentionally clipping in a debate I will promptly vote against the offender and give both debaters on the team the lowest points the tournament permits. Debate is important to me and cheaters are cowards who plague the activity. Now, if you accidentally skip one line or something and the other team calls you out and it doesn't appear deliberate I will simply just not evaluate that part of the card because it hasn't been presented in the debate. No one is perfect, I too accidentally skip a word from time to time. There's a difference between cheating and making a mistake in your presentation of evidence, and I will try my best to enforce that distinction.

Speed: it's good. Be clear. I would like to hear the warrants in your evidence as they're presented. I'm not saying I need to be able to repeat you word for word, but if all I hear is a tag and cite and can't decipher the internals of a piece of evidence, I'll say clear. I will say clear up to three times to any given debater. If the problem persists I will just simply not be able to understand your arguments, and you will probably lose and not have very good speaker points. This activity is based on persuasion, and it's hard for me to be persuaded if I can't figure out what you're saying. This is where form and content collide.

Speaks: I think everyone starts at a 28.2 and you either go down or up based on your performance in the round. To me, a 28.2 reflects an average high school debate speech. I'm not one of those cynical folks who can't be impressed by debaters that I judge. To be honest, it probably won't be too hard for you to impress me and increase your speaks. I'm a young judge, I'm not a very cranky person. If you make quality arguments and are a pleasant person to judge your speaks will reflect that.

Here's a way I guess you can relate to the way I think about debate. In high school, these were my favorite judges: -Gabe Murillo -jon sharp -Shree Awsare -Calum Matheson -Claire McKinney -Eric Lanning -Darryl Burch -Jarrod Atchison