Sawyer,+Kelsey

Updated August 2017

Hello!! If I am in a round with you right now, know that I am very excited to have the opportunity to see you perform and learn from you! I like to disclose and give oral critiques after the round (unless the tournament is on a serious time crunch or they've instructed me otherwise). After I have made my decision, feel free to ask me any questions or for clarification. The below paradigm is for __all__ debate events. Debate is a sport, so let's have fun! :]

- Debate Experience: __HS:__ FX/DX, SC, & CX - - - __College:__ Extemp (briefly) - Graduated Plano East in 2011 - - - UT Austin in 2015 (BA economics & GIS, energy mgmt specialization, & arabic language/mid east studies) - Work in Houston energy industry (midstream marketing, previously worked in upstream contract/land negotiations) - Judging Experience: 3+ years of judging in Houston & Dallas circuits; 2017 so far: 4 rounds congress, 8 rounds LD, 8 rounds CX, 28 rounds PF

Simplest label for my judging is the "games player//":// everything goes as long as your case carries internal consistency & you give me voters. I view my role as a judge similar to that of Sherry Hall's, which is a "critic of argument." __** (1) **__ Thus, the core of your "presentation" to me is to demonstrate understanding of your own arguments and the strategy in using them. It is critical that you tell me directly why your argument matters, & that you understand **how & why** your arguments should be utilized. I have voted many rounds based largely on **demonstrated fluency/genuine intent**. Speed is fine. I've decided lately to stop trying to impose my wish of traditional LD onto my ballot choices, but I //implore// high school debaters to resist and/or **challenge** collegiate "trends".

Big picture > line-by-line. Analysis > quantity of examples.

__**Concerning evidentiary rules:**__ If you choose to use a radical analytic or rely on "generally well-known fact" as a critical juncture in a link, then you are asking the judge to intervene & determine the validity of your claim. This may not work in your favor. The one way to avoid this is to make sure you have cards to back you up. //The only caveat is that you should be to **explain the logical syntax of your arguments** & your cards.// A guaranteed way to win ethos with me is to go beyond "extend card" or "this matters because card says so" - tell me __**//how//**__ your card leads to the conclusion that you've assigned to it and __**//why//**__ I should view your card as the authority in the round. Anyone can buy card packs, but excellent debaters study and understand their contents.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck!

__** (1) **__ http://departments.kings.edu/debate/hall%20sherry.pdf