Alexander,+Danny

I debated for 4 years at Mayde Creek High School in Houston, TX and now I'm a coach, part-time judge, and full time student at the University of Houston as a finance major. I competed on the TOC circuit for 3 years and qualified as a senior. I've also competed on the NFL circuit placing 14th at nationals, and on the Texas UIL circuit placing 3rd in Texas. So, I have experience with various debate styles and open to any one you wish to employ. As a caveat, this is my first year judging. I find, however, that it is fairly easy to win my ballot if you are able to be comparative. By being "comparative" I mean explain the interaction between your arguments versus the your opponent's. As simple as this sounds, debaters tend to assume the judge can draw lines for them.


 * Speed**: Giving my preference on a scale of 1-10 would be futile. Just be clear and I'll follow what you are saying. If you speak at 330wpm and are //clear// - awesome. I **will not** yell "clear" in round. First, I don't like yelling; it's bad for one's throat and second, I would not yell "don't forget the theory argument", so I don't see why I should help you out in other ways that require a verbal command during your speeches. Make me happy: be clear. __Slow down after author names__ (especially if you extend by using author names) and __slow down after tags__. Other than that, you're fine. Cards can be spread because they don't involve to much thinking. If they do, however, invoke a considerable amount of contemplation, //emphasize// the warrants you are going to extend or want me to flow.


 * Assumptions**: No judge is truly tabula rasa. I assume that theory comes before substance; theory is a matter of competing interpretations; only real abuse matters; and topicality comes before the AC. These are going to be my assumptions, however these are only my assumptions until a debater argues otherwise. Definitions should be fair and I will award you with low speaks if you win off of a shifty definition - that's just my way of retaliation for not good debate. Feel free to argue morality doesn't exist and justice is indeterminant. Maybe it is; maybe not. These are interesting arguments when written and explained //articulately//.


 * Preferences:** I prefer that both debaters offer some weighing mechanism (or agree upon one). Needless to say, this is how debate rounds are won (or lost for that matter). I do not prefer listening to "postmodern" philosophy (I use quotes because "postmodern" has a different definition amongst debaters than formally identified academically), unless it is topic-specific, cut well, and explained well. I'd also prefer that your author actually agrees with what you're arguing. These are all things that will increase your chances of winning and/or will be reflected on your speaker points.


 * Non-traditional stuff**: I've ran and debated counter plans, kritiks, ironic positions, critical positions, theory, topicality, PICs/VICs, and performances. BUT, although I am familiar with them, you have the burden to tell me how I should deal with the case that you are presenting me with (once again, a decision calculus is requisite). Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A critique better link to the opponent's case, not just to the writers of the resolution.


 * Speaker Points:**


 * **30:** Amazing. Expected to be in late out rounds.
 * **28-29:** Impressive.
 * **27.5:** Average Speaker.
 * **25-27:** Not a good round.

Ask me questions because this paradigm is far from all-inclusive. I'm not bothered by specific questions, just **don't** come in and ask me, "do you have paradigms?". My response will be a sardonic 'yes'.