Wilson,+Cory

cory wilson (policy first, ld later)

4 years policy in high school at bishop kelley in oklahoma (marine natural resources-national service), and 1 year in college at UCO (constructive engagement). judged high school cx (africa - present) and ld for 9 years, locally and nationally.

i view debate as something entirely left up to the debaters. i'm just a body to decide who won the debate (in a world where personal advocacy isn't a voter), so consequently whatever happens in the round is to be decided by the teams; i'll default to a mix of policy/flow if i'm not placed into another paradigm. my default role of the ballot is to vote for the best policy option, from a consequentialist perspective. again, this can be changed- give me warranted analysis why.

my intention is to walk into the room and not inject personal bias into the round. so, i won't hold it against you (in the debate, at least) if your politics scenario calls liberals tree-hugging hippies. nor, unfortunately, will i give your argument more weight for suggesting that glenn beck be shot into the sun. in the past, i've been okay with arguments such as "justifying racism", but after some pretty serious reconsideration, i think that there are some subjects that should be taken as fact. "racism is bad" and "misogyny is bad" are definitely two of them; the list could (and probably will) expand.

last thing before the stuff you actually care about: i do my best to NOT give any sort of nonverbal cues like nodding, shaking my head etc when it comes to the arguments themselves. if you're getting a death glare, then it's probably something you're doing. something like being rude in cross, beating an argument to death, stealing prep, or doing something silly. so don't do it.

POLICY PARADIGM t, procedurals, theory, etc: i'll vote on them, but take it with a grain of salt. there are only a few things worse than a bad procedural debate- bad kritik debate, dramatic events of all walks, etc. to win my ballot on these issues, you need to do all four of the following things: a) articulate a clear abuse story b) prove in-round abuse c) win the flow and d) give standards and voters. in the case of theory especially, BUZZWORDS ARE NOT WARRANTS. you need to explain what you're talking about for me to actually give a damn about what you're saying. i don't think that potential abuse is a voter most of the time, but it has a time and place. if you do go for it, you need a pretty good story about why i should care. i tend to buy reasonability within, well, reason. as far as theory goes, remember that i'm not reading your computer. if you have very substantive analysis about education, you probably want to slow down to make sure that i get everything. besides, if you're really trying to go for theory, shouldn't you be convincing about making me vote on something dirty like "severance perms good"?

disads: i would most definitely prefer a specific one to a generic one, but i do understand that sometimes you don't have something specific. if you're going to go for it, however, i do expect a story on the disad in the 2nr explaining what i am voting on and why you link to the aff and why your impact outweighs.

counterplans: pretty legit. net benefits are really awesome. be competitive. i don't think that presumption automatically shifts aff when a counterplan is read- like with everything else, justify why (or why not).

kritiks: as mentioned above, when it's bad, it's bad. when it's good, i thoroughly enjoy it. i'm not going to pretend to be very well versed in the wealth of literature and arguments that exist, but i like to think i'm on the better side of most. in order to be on the safe side, you should do the same thing for the kritik as you do the disad in the second rebuttal- tell me why the other team links, why it's bad and outweighs their impacts, and how the alternative gains solvency. an idea of what the world would look like post-alternative would be a great addition to your story. additionally, you should probably know how to pronounce your author and at least act confident in pronouncing (and knowing) things like "ressentiment" or other specialized words/phrases that pop up in the literature that you read.

LD PARADIGM

this is mostly colored by my policy background (so arguments about keeping the event pure aren't going to be met with much enthusiasm), but i've gotten more comfortable with the event as i've gone along. the biggest thing for me is clash and clear articulation of what your value means vis a vis the resolution and why it is the best for the resolution. the criterion debate seems to fall in line with the value debate, but if it comes down to whose criterion gains better access to the value, then i expect good analysis as to why yours is the best.

i'm apt to consider "voting issues" if presented at the end of the nr and the 2ar over sifting through the flow.

i'm also willing to listen to off-case arguments if presented properly and with a clear warrant as to why the aff or neg links and why it impacts my ballot.

GENERAL COMMENTARY i don't like being referred to as "judge"- i have a name. so if you have a habit of saying "look to x flow, judge" or whatever, you can replace judge with cory, dude, buddy, or even disregard addressing a specific person and say "look to x flow". it won't hurt your speaker points, just a matter of personal preference. while on the subject of speaker points, i've found myself to be fairly liberal with them in comparison to others. my usual range goes from 26 to 29, with 30s going to those who i feel deliver an above-and-beyond speech. however, if i feel a competitor has been rude, abhorrent in any manner (language, action, etc), or just a poor speaker, i have dropped into the low 20s or even high 10s.

as far as paperless debate goes, i count prep until the flash drive is in the hands of your opponent.

i encourage any questions for clarification or if i left something out. i would rather you have a clear idea of what i will/will not vote on than you charging blindly and hoping for the best at the end of the round. for questions outside of the round, you can contact me at cory(dot)g(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dotcom)