Fowler,+Tom


 * Tom Fowler**
 * Hutchinson**

I graduated from high school in 1997, I have been a relatively active participant (judging/sponsoring/coaching) in the community since then. I have probably judged more high flow debates than anyone in the KS community, we're talking literally hundreds of rounds. I say that not to brag, but so you'll understand that I have a lot of experience.

My "paradigm" is a hybrid between policy maker and offense/defense. What this means is that probability arguments mean more to me than your everyday O/D hack. Links and Thresholds are things that should be discussed in debates. Learn to make "defensive" arguments offensively (and by that, I don't mean to hurt the other team's feelings). I believe that 100% defense exists. It's easy to say that "We control the uniqueness, so we control the direction of the link"... But, I believe that debate is more nuanced than that. With every link comes a threshold, and with every internal link, another threshold... there is defense to be had, every step of the way. Uniqueness debates aren't necessarily the most important thing in a disad probability debate.


 * Some of my pet peeves are:**


 * Not labeling your arguments - Any strategic advantage you would get by not labeling (the 4 seconds it takes for the other team to come look over your shoulder), is vastly outweighed by the ground you are losing by making the judge play "guess the argument".
 * Not numbering your arguments - (although, sadly no one does this anymore)
 * Not sticking to the line by line - Aesthetically, Debate is a game that is played with the judge's pen on the paper in front the judge. Debate is not a game that is played on your paper, or in your head, or on your laptop or whatever. You need to make sure the things that you say have a "place" in that game. Good line by line debaters get excellent speaker points from me.
 * Leaving me with a big mess to clean up after the 2N/ARs - I don't like doing work, tell me why you win. If you leave it up to me, you might not like what I come up with.
 * New in the 2 - Don't like it. The fact that it's 2012 and I even still have to say this makes me an extremely sad panda


 * Topicality:**

I enjoy a good T debate. I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded off of it if you win a reasonability debate. The threshold is pretty high though, so you'd be best to win via the fairness/education debate.


 * Speed:**

Speed is fine, clarity is critically important. If I give a "clear" call, chances are I've already missed some of your arguments, so it is best (for both your speaker points and chances of winning the round) that you take this very seriously. Speed is a means, not an end... it's a tool that you can use to win debates. Slowing down, explaining your arguments, and attempting to persuade me that your vision of the round is the correct one, is an equally (if not more) valuable tool. Definitely slow down on T and theory, if you want to win it.

Over the past couple of years I've noticed a trend that people write these analytical-heavy 2NC/1NR blocks that have detailed explanations of warrants and cross applications. These are great, but the problem is that teams tend to read these at top speed.... Let me be the one to say that this is completely unflowable. It's too fast for the type of arguments you are trying to make. Slowing down on this sort of stuff is crucial. I've been in rounds where teams have essentially thrown away a solid 4 minutes collectively in the block by having highly-technical analytic arguments that were completely unflowable at 300 WPM. These types of arguments, without taglines, are types that make the judge have to think. You just can't read them at top speed.


 * Counterplans:**

Be prepared to defend theory. I have pretty strong feelings that Fiat should be reciprocal, so I have a lower thresholds on fiat abuse type arguments than most. That said, you've still got to win the argument. I'm not going to intervene on this. I also tend to think that things like consult and delay are plan+ and therefore not competitive... again I'm not going to intervene. I wouldn't even necessarily say that I'm biased against these types of arguments, I've voted for stuff like consult and states plenty of times. This is more of a "If I was king of debate, here would be my decree" type statement. Floating PICs and Word PICs are not something that I find compelling.


 * Kritiks:**

I'm not a K guy. Don't assume that I know anything about your argument. This means 2 things:

1. It means that me understanding your argument is a prerequisite to picking up my ballot. It's almost as if presumption shifts when you run a K, similar to a CP. You've got to win the Framework debate, you've got to beat the perm, you've got to explain the impact to your kritik, and you've got to explain how the alt functions in the round.

2. My unfamiliarity with the literature means that I can't do work for you. On a politics disad, you say winners win, and I immediately know what that means and how that argument functions in debate. On a Kritik, you say cede the political, I'm not going to have the same immediate recognition. (I actually do know that argument, it's just an example... I also understand that it's an Aff argument, just the best example I could come up with off the top of my head). You've got to explain. That's the bottom line.

Affs that don't defend a plan text will probably have a hard time winning a T debate. Teams that use personal stories, read poetry, rap, or dance etc might want to strike me. However, I do enjoy interesting arguments, and am a pretty reasonably open-minded person. If you've got a interesting argument I will listen with an open mind.


 * Case Debate:**

Love it, with the fire of a billion suns. I have noticed a quasi rebirth of the case debate the past few years, and couldn't be happier about it.