Gooderham,+JP

I debated for four years at Upper St. Clair HS (PA), and I spent my final two seasons debating primarily on the national circuit. I qualified to the TOC twice, and I broke to TOC elimination rounds my senior year. I also have debated at NFL in addition to local competition, so I should be fairly familiar with whichever style you most prefer.

Given the fact that I believe debate should be an activity that gives students a voice, I am pretty open to most attempts to win the ballot. Nevertheless, I definitely do have several preferences, and I would prefer it if you would consider said preferences when crafting your strategy. It probably will benefit you in the end.

Short Version: Speed is fine. K's are ok. Please signpost. I avoid intervention as much as possible.

Long Version:

1. Speed – Knock yourself out. Like I said, I debated a lot in high school, and I should be able to handle it. Nonetheless, if you cannot speak with a little clarity when reading your AC, you should definitely slow down. Though I like fast debates, I don’t like cases that make absolutely no sense when read. Tip: starting slower than top speed and then working your way up is usually the best bet to make sure nothing is missed at the top of the case. Also, please slow down with author names. This is probably the thing that bugs me the most. Read the name, take a breath, and fly again when you get to the evidence. If necessary, I will yell “clear.”

2. Theory – I look at theory as a necessary evil. I firmly believe that theory is the only way to deal with some extremely abusive positions, and I will certainly be sympathetic to your abuse story if that is the case. However, if your goal is to use theory to shield your weak substantive strategy (i.e. generating ridiculous abuse stories against simple, stock arguments), I probably won’t be a fan. That means I personally view theory as a defensive weapon.

When running theory, I would prefer that you follow the traditional format (with a clearly labeled interpretation/violation, standard(s), and voter). Like I said, my threshold for pulling the trigger on theory is relatively high, so investing enough time on theory to develop a strong abuse story will be crucial. Likewise, I am bothered by the proliferation of weak or non-existent warrants describing why fairness is a voter. If you want theory to be an issue I can pull the trigger on, don’t read a blippy fairness/education voter.

Honestly, I think I prefer solid interpretation vs. counter-interpretation debates rather than dumping a “fairness is not a voter” block on the shell. Articulating why you meet the interpretation or why there is no abuse based on the standards are both persuasive strategies in my book. I am not an enormous fan of RVIs, but I will vote on them if they are well-warranted and well-developed. There should be an extremely clear ballot story, so make sure that you are investing sufficient time if you want to win off these types of issues.

3. Critical Arguments – I was not a K debater in high school, but I am open to critical debate. That said, I have not read an enormous amount of common K literature, so make sure that a) you are doing enough work to explain arguments for someone unfamiliar with the texts to understand, and b) you can slow down if the rhetoric of a card is particularly confusing. If you are unable to do either of these things, chances are we will not be on the same page. On a similar note, I follow a general rule of not voting for arguments that I don’t understand, so coherent thoughts would definitely be in your best interest.

4. Policy Arguments – I am fine with counterplans/disadvantages as well as ACs structured as plans. Make it clear how the position wins the ballot; for instance, if you are weighing the impact of the DA to the AC standard or if you are using direct impact comparison with the plan, please articulate that.

5. Extensions – Maybe I lied. I think bad extensions are the issue that will tick me off the most. Do not reference an argument and say it is extended (i.e. extend my first contention). I really want extensions that re-explain the warrant/impact of the argument. If you are using an extension to take out another argument, explain why the strategy makes sense, as in there should be a reason why the extension eliminates turns 2, 3, and 4.

6. Weighing – I love great weighing. I don’t like a downpour of weighing-related buzzwords. Do comparative work to demonstrate why your impacts matter (i.e. more people will die according to the X evidence than…) instead of just referencing comparative terms like magnitude and timeframe. If you can weigh arguments well, you will have a very good chance of winning my ballot in close debates. I really like seeing debaters collapse to several big issues while weighing impacts or layering the debate effectively instead of just extending every argument they can. This strategy usually requires a lot more skill, and I think it makes the debate far more interesting.

7. Random – A couple more points about what I like/dislike in rounds: a. I would really like it if you would, in some way, indicate when a card ends and your analysis begins. b. I don’t like it when kids (especially when debating an inexperienced competitor) are intentionally cruel during CX or in speeches. Follow the golden rule, and we should be alright. c. If you have extended a dropped argument with ballot implications (i.e. theory) and it is clear that I will vote on it, there isn’t really a reason to continue with another 5 minutes of the 2N. I won’t be mad if you want to practice extending arguments from a new position or whatever, but I think finishing the speech in these rare cases is usually not necessary. d. Stay away from “double win theory,” “30 speaks theory,” and the like. e. I will only read evidence after the round if a) I know I was at fault for not flowing the content (i.e. my pen died, flipping the paper, etc.), or b) there is an in-round disagreement about the meaning of the card. Outside of those problems, I am not going to spend a lot of time reading the cards, especially if I didn’t catch something because you were unclear. f. COME TO THE ROUND PRE-FLOWED.

8. Conclusion – My goal is to do the least amount of work possible to reach the decision. I want to see arguments extended, compared, precluded, etc. by the debaters in rounds. Consistent with that objective, I vote for the person who best meets whatever standard/burden has been established through his/her extended arguments unless some alternative method of evaluating the round has been proposed. Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you may have about my paradigm before a round.