Ezell,+Brice

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years in Bakersfield Christian High School, and I now compete in WUDC (World University Debate, commonly known as British Parliamentary) for George Fox University in Oregon. This primarily serves the function for my LD paradigm; I don't think Worlds debaters refer to judge paradigms...

While the league I competed in was lay (which, sadly to say, was my one option), I am familiar with the technical circuit methodology of LD and have done it to a minor extent. My most noteworthy achievement in LD was double octas at NFL Nats which, while providing good competition, doesn't match the more circuit style of debate that websites like these serve for. I'm hoping to judge at some bid tournaments, so here's what I think about LD, in brief:


 * Speed**

I'm aware that 99 percent of the reason that sites like this exist is because of this issue, so I'll be clear: I'm fine with medium fast speed (vague as that is, that's as approximate as I can get). I wish I could say that I can handle all speed, but as it is I can't. I'm by no means a lay judge, though; don't be afraid to speed if necessary. If you're unclear, I'll tell you to be clear. Speaking personally, a clean, slow speaker is naturally more persuasive presence than someone who's a bit zippier, but then again I find myself going too fast sometimes myself so I understand the tendency.


 * Other Stuff**

I'll buy any paradigm you warrant to me; even crazy skepticism I'd be open to, but for something like that you'd need some damn good warrants.

If you're doing this well I'm not going to mark you down for it, but I like it when cases are spent mostly on offensive arguments and not laying out tricky frameworks. When your AC is four minutes of framework and definitions and two minutes of offensive argument to back that up, I find myself less compelled by your argument for the resolution. I understand the value of framework debates, but I think they're overdone. Again, I'm not the judge to immediately strike you down for doing something that's not my preference (i.e. though I'm more inclined to O/D then truth-testing, I won't inherently hold you to a higher standard for doing the latter), but do argue for the resolution. That's why it's there.

Ks are cool. Fortunately, the K's I've heard in LD actually have something of legitimacy to them, rather than the Frankenstein hybrid K's in policy that mash together philosophical ideas that are nonsense when conglomerated. I am familiar with philosophical and K literature, but don't assume I know the nuances of your argument; read analytics, especially when you're dealing with the heady stuff. I'm a big fan of Socrates/Plato, Zizek, Chomsky, Scanlon, Plantinga (don't know how you'd use him, but if you can, awesome!), and classical feminist philosophy. My main philosophical area of interest is aesthetics, so crazy art arguments would be fantastic to run in front of me. One pet peeve: merely running rape disadvantages does not a feminist K make.

Counter-Plans: Are the best thing ever. Run 'em. Just make them strategic and awesome and not generic. If you're running a generic CP, I'll likely mark you down for it. CP debates are really fun to adjudicate and when it's done lazily it makes me mad.

I'd prefer author credentials when citing sources (it doesn't have to be extensive; "professor at Harvard" or something of the like suffices). I generally trust debaters not to BS their evidence, but we do throw around a lot of really heavy stuff in LD and it's always good to give credit to the authors that we sometimes mangle to get our point(s) across.

Also, I do believe CX is a time for making arguments. That is, if the negative makes an argument coming out of the 1st CX, but doesn't bring that argument back up until the 2NR (don't know why one would do that, but hey...), I don't consider that making a new argument. I've had that problem before, so I just wanted to make that clear.

__Things I Like A Lot__ -Clear, concise speaking (whether one is going faster or slower; it is definitely possible to be fast and clear) -Good, offensive arguments with clear warrants and analytics -Well-warranted theory (T is good, just not always) -Counter-Plans -Well-Linked DAs -Humor (LD needs a serious boost in this area; CX is a goldmine for this stuff!) -Good use of CX (I'm not opposed to flex-prep, but use it discerningly. That is, if you use little of the flex time to ask questions but your opponent uses a substantial amount, your opponent is likely to get more speaks) -Ks that aren't ridiculous -Eye contact (Old fashioned, maybe, but still, I think, a good part of communication)

__Things I Don't Like__ -Overly long frameworks and the subsequent overly long framework debates -Taking blips from frameworks and trying to destroy your opponent's case with them (if it's treated as a blip in the AC, I'll treat it like a blip on the flow) -T for the sake of T -K's that abuse the literature (I know it's hard to distill some philosophies in a short time, but don't butcher them) -Assuming utilitarianism (I often default to something like a post-AC utility calculus when rounds are absolutely disastrous, but don't just assume pragmatic impacts are inherently better. I think very compelling cases could be made for philosophical/moral impacts that don't necessarily tie to tangible impacts, and actually I wish those debates happen more often) -Conditionality (Haven't seen much of it in LD, but just in case...)

__Things That Will Pretty Much Pit Me Against You Outright__ -Disclosure Theory (I'm weird and think that disclosure shouldn't happen at all, but since it is happening I have to accept it. As for this line of argument, though, count me out. This is probably the one area where I'm "closed-minded" as a judge, but I'm content to live with that). -Rudeness/Arrogance -New arguments in rebuttals -Morally outrageous positions (Holocaust good, sexism/racism good, etc.)

<25: You either spoke for thirty seconds or called for the extinction of humanity. 26: Inoffensive, maybe got the job done, could use some notable improvements. 27: Average; you did the sufficient job necessary to affirm or negate. 28: Above average; You did better than an ordinary debater, probably by good speaking or unique arguments. 29: Well above average; I would be surprised if you didn't break at the tournament. Impressive argumentation and speaking all around. 30: Your case drips of God's tears. You should at least make it to late outrounds, if not win the tournament.
 * Speaks**

Also, a bit of preference, though I have noticed this improving over time: don't use sexist language in your constructives. That is, if you use one, don't always use "he" to refer back to that. Also don't refer to all people as "man" or "mankind." I'm aware that many aren't aware of the implications of the gender bias in English, so I won't immediately mark you down for it, but please be aware of this.

That's about anything I could think of. I've noticed others putting their emails up, so here's mine: bezell10@georgefox.edu, though I don't know why you'd need it.

Have fun. Debate is an immensely valuable activity and, while it is educational, it is also a damn good time.