Roark,+Collin

I am a graduate student at the University of North Texas. Debated for four years in college at the University of Texas at Dallas. Worked several debate camps and have +8 years of experience in the activity.

Flashing speeches doesn't count as prep but if you are taking upwards of 5 minutes between speeches, your speaker points will suffer.


 * Summary/the best advice: comparisons** - I want the debaters to tell me how to evaluate things. This applies to everything - theory, impact comparisons, evidence, etc. It's a joke for any judge to say they are completely neutral or objective, but you'll find that my own personal biases/proclivity for certain arguments will fade away if you convince me by out-debating the other team and establishing the frame through which I should evaluate arguments. Bigger is more important than faster, quals determine the veracity of truth claims, etc. This is largely a result of how I view debate. Although I think debate is an academic space where we test and discuss important ideas, it is largely a game or a competition (unless I'm told to view it as something else).

I've seen alot of highly detailed debates over various aff mechanisms vs process cp's/advantage CP's. Please don't assume I know everything about a) what your aff says b) what the cp says and c) what the solvency deficit you are trying to blippily extend from the 1AC for three seconds is. The aff will lose these debates. Both the aff and the neg should discuss what is necessary/sufficient to solve "x" advantage and why the cp does/doesn't remedy that. That might seem fairly elementary but has been an issue in several debates I've judged over the years and one side always ends up disappointed. Your CP probably does not solve 100 percent of the case and the aff probably doesn't have a 100 percent solvency deficit - explain which internal links are most important and why the CP solves those best - why does the net benefit outweigh the remaining risk of a solvency def? My default for the CP is that that is the 2NR advocacy - I WILL NOT default to the status quo unless the negative tells me to and gives reasons why that's ok.
 * Counterplans/Disads** -


 * Kritiks** - I have a basic understanding of most although this is not a huge part of my debate background. There needs to be specific link arguments, interactions with the case, and reasons the alternative resolves some part of the aff or some meta-level issue. I emphasize specific link arguments because I hate when things get as general as "doing things with energy policy is capitalist, zizek and daly, do nothing". I've seen this debate +50 times and know how it goes. If you don't spice it up, I will get bored. You might win, but at the expense of your points. Tailored analysis or case-specific k's will be rewarded. I will assume the aff gets to weigh their case unless an alternative framework or ROB argument is introduced.

To quote Louie: "...clash of civilization debates...I find them enjoyable, but I will admit that I am more familiar with the policy civilization." I have voted on k shanannigans and I have also voted on the wall. The team that wins usually just out-executes.
 * Clash of civ's**


 * Topicality** - I've realized after several years this is one of my weakest areas of evaluation when judging debates - not to discourage you from making it your strategy, but just to give you a fair warning and make you aware of my proclivities. I'm not very familiar with t arguments on this topic just because I haven't invested much work there. So ways around this are reading strong, relevant t arguments that directly apply to the aff, giving a caselist, topical version of the aff, and making strong comparisons on your standards. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Reasonability can be persuasive, especially if their interp is dumb.


 * Theory** - I think of debate as a game so there are few hard rules on what is good and bad. The negative, more often than not, is ahead in theory debates just because aff teams are so bad at advancing good theory arguments. That being said, I can be persuaded to vote on anything ranging from conditionality to consult bad. If you are in trouble, I will recognize the need to abandon ship and win the debate. I like counter interpretations that resolve the other sides offense and comparisons at the impact level. The conditionality yardstick is a funny thing to measure. Does the neg get 3/2/1? They get as many as they can defend I suppose. Most theory arguments besides conditionality are reasons to reject the argument not the team unless there is a warranted argument advanced by the affirmative to the contrary.

Technical drops - there's a difference in importance for several arguments. Dropping "disad turns the case" (usually game over) is different from dropping 'multiple perms' bad (gross). In most debates things are never "completely dropped" but answered through embedded clash on different parts of the flow....Or just debated sloppily Absolute defense - this seems to be a growing issue of concern for some judges/debaters. I can be persuaded of this to some extent if you make strong, logical argument and introduce a framework in contrast to strict offense/defense good. There probably isn't "zero-risk" of an argument but a risk can sometimes be so low that it can be disregarded by a decision maker. Spin > Evidence. That is not to say evidence never matters, but merely to refer to my top-level point - in-round comparison always prevails.
 * Other things** - Be nice. Answer questions in cross-x.

Go for warming good good cross-x questions. Jokes Well-research, cohesive strategies*** I like being told what lens to evaluate impacts and evidence - ok debaters extend arguments - great debaters make comparisons and tell me what's most important. Engaging K affs. Sometimes you gotta go for fw, but a well-executed impact turn or kritik is sick. Not reading the Cap K. I'm tired of it. Do some topic research. Clarity/efficiency Don't under-highlight. Point out when your opponents have cave-man quality highlighting. Don't clip cards or cheat.
 * Ways to earn speaker points:**

questions? Ask.

Have fun, fight hard.

Collin