Flick,+Dallas

Flick, Dallas


 * General Musings**

I’ve been involved in the debate activity for 8 years. I competed in both high school and college, debating policy in high school, and NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate in college. At my peak, I confidently think of myself as an octs debater, save for any random flashes of brilliance that would get me to quarters.

NOTE- NOVEMBER OF 2016 WILL BE MY FIRST TIME JUDGING FOR THE 2016/17 SCHOOL YEAR. Plan accordingly for a bit of rust if I'm in front of you during the Hockaday RR/Tournament, but I should get back into the swing of things fairly quickly. My ear for speed has probably depreciated somewhat significantly, so be ready to slow down a bit if you're stuck with me early. I'm still aware of how debate works, so you need not be totally concerned.

This will be my sixth year of judging. In that time I have judged primarily high school debate, including policy, LD, and PFD. As a general paradigm I default policymaker, but I’m completely fine with adopting a different means of evaluating a round if needed. I strive to not interject my own knowledge and disposition regarding the activity and certain arguments in the round. However, if there is no clear means of evaluating the round presented by the debaters, I will default to a policymaking lens to determine the winner of the round. I don’t dislike any particular style of argumentation (DA, CP, K, etc.), and while I find some arguments to be highly ridiculous and/or absurd, so long as they are explained in a cogent way and weighed accordingly in the round, I will vote for the arguments presented.


 * Specific Debate Reflections**


 * Speed-** I will do my best to adapt to your comfortable speed level, but I will not hesitate to yell clear if I cannot hear you or cannot understand the gibberish you call “spreading.” I expect you to become more audible for myself or for the other team if they yell clear. SEE NOTE ABOVE.
 * note- my hearing is not amazing, so be prepared to project loudly if you have me as a judge, no matter where I might be sitting in the room*


 * Impact Calc-** I typically start and end my thought process and my RFD with some type of impact weighing, so if this work is done for me by the debaters, my decision (and mood) will improve greatly. Be thorough with weighing impacts, don’t just give me taglines and expect me to do the work for you on what the impact actually means for the world of your argument—this is bad debating and will reflect poorly on your speaker points/chances of winning.


 * The Kritik-** I am comfortable with voting on the K, just explain in detail the role of the ballot and the underlying theoretical position of the argument. I understand the function of the K, but my prior knowledge of the philosophy that makes up the foundation for most Ks is extremely lacking. Just be clear about (1) the role of the ballot, (2) the underlying theory of the K, and (3) the world of the alt (if applicable to your position) and I will be fine with voting for the argument.


 * Theory-** I’m fine with MOST theory arguments. However, I am extremely unfamiliar with some aspects of LD theory (spikes, nibs, to name a few), and have a slightly higher threshold for voting on them as result. If you wish to read these arguments and go for them at the end of the round, it is in your best interest to go all in on the argument and be extremely detailed on how they operate in the round, otherwise I will just ignore them.


 * Specific Notes for LD-**

I've never had a specific method for viewing an LD round, so arguments regarding framing and weighing the round should be stressed heavily, made clear, and put near the front of the speech you are on (unless this is completely opposite of how you normally structure your constructives/rebuttals, which in that case, don't worry too much about this).

Contention debate is where I usually put most of my thought when evaluating the round (unless this is suddenly and outdated concept and nobody told me), so put emphasis on this in the round. Beyond that, do whatever you want--I'll keep up with the substance if you're willing to put in the work on framing the round properly.


 * Ethos**-

Debate should be fun, but debate should also be welcoming and friendly to all participants. If you are rude to your opponents, I will respond in kind to your speaker points (nice people deserve higher seeding).

BROADLY SPEAKING- While I understand that debate should be a laid-back environment, I’m sure you are representing some kind of educational establishment that fully supports your academic and competitive interests. PLEASE do not put me in a position where I have to go tattle on you to your coach/sponsor because you acted in a morally/ethically questionable manner during the round. It will reflect poorly on you, your partner, your team, your school, and the activity at large. I will not lose what little sleep I get over the matter.

I will consider bonus speaker points for QUALITY Trump/Hillary jokes.