Clingman,+John

I have been debating for over thirty years. I have taught debate for the past twenty years in four different districts. I have been located in Texas the entire time. This year I am teaching debate at Dulles High School in Fort Bend.
 * Background:**

Lincoln-Douglas - Speed is not a problem. There should not be speed done to get your points across, but understanding is not a problem for me. Contentions should link to both value and criterion. Criterion must achieve or measure value. Cannot just be a cool phrase you learned. There MUST be clash. Should not be two cases that never meet in the night. Give me voters at end! Why should I vote for you? Tell me. Also, some believe that Lincoln-Douglas occurs in a vacuum of "wouldn't it be cool if life were like ..." Give me reality as well. Sometimes I judge with a policy state of mind, so I like to hear the basics. Remember, the cross ex is not a speech. You want it in the round, bring it up in a constructive or rebuttal speech. Also, just because the word "ought" is in the resolution, does not mean that morality is ALWAYS going to be the proper value. Also, be precise in your value definitions. Don't just assume the philosopher you are following is the correct one for your value. Also, style is also something to be evaluated in LD. give me analysis, not just random evidence. If you don't know wjhat your evidence says, it doesn't mean squat to me. Explain your attacks. be prepared to answer for EVERYTHING you say. Reasoning is better than rote reading. I know the topic just like you do. One other thing for both value and policy debate ... DON'T MAKE ME ENTER THE ROUND! I hate when I have to say, "If the debater had said this, he would have won." The round is on the flow, not in my head.
 * Philosophies:**

Policy - Again, speed is not a problem. I am a stock issues judge. Not a huge fan of an entire debate of theory, kritiks, topicality, and perms. Why do I need this? Why is nothing being done? How will you solve? Not how the topic hurts all women no matter what happens. If your kritik totally links to case, go with it. Also, I hate time wasters. Dont make me flow all this just to kick it later. Clash, people! Clash! Also, no open cross ex. That only allows the person who knows the case to answer questions.Out rounds are different. Then I will accept open cross ex. By then each partner should know. I spent most of my debating years as a cross exer (policy), so I have that mind set mostly. As with LD, analysis and reasoning are important. Not just the evidence. Also, I have researched the topic as well. Don't think you can put one over on me. Also, I don't like oral critiques. My ballot should be enough. As to who I ultimately give the round to is the team that presents the arguments clearly, with reasonable analysis, and persuaded me that their side is superior. It may sound simple, but I have judged too many rounds where a team has thought they had put out everything, but lost in telling me why it was important. And I cannot stress this enough. GIVE ME STOCK ISSUES! they are part of policy debate for a reason.

I hope this helps in figuring out who I am and how I judge.