Agler,+Brian


 * Education: ** Cinco Ranch High School ‘07, Tufts University ‘11
 * Circuits: ** Local TFA, Texas National Tournaments, UIL State, NFL Nationals
 * Coaching: ** UTNIF, Cinco Ranch High School

I like to think I enter the round pretty tab. I’m a firm believer in the idea that the only rules are the time limit, and which side the debates are on (I see the activity as an academic Thunderdome). So, to that end, I really don’t care what kind of arguments are run: Traditional, K, discursive, whatever. All I need at the end is some sort of weighing mechanism. I’ll default to Value/Standard, but if you have given me a clear path to vote on some kind of alternative structure, I’ll do it. But, again, that argument has to be clearly made by the debater, I can’t do the framework/weighing work for you. If there aren’t a clear set of priorities in the round, the decision becomes arbitrary, and no one likes that.

A few specific notes:


 * Theory: ** If you’re going to run theory, the abuse story has to be very clear. I think theory is a real tool that can make the round/activity better. But, all too often, it just gets thrown out as a time-suck. All of the elements of the argument have to be present, I’m not going to vote on it just because it’s labeled “theory.” Also, if your impact is “drop the debater,” rather than “drop the argument”, be prepared to have to work extra hard. That’s not to say I won’t do it; but that’s an awfully big request, and you need a good argument to back it up.


 * Speed: ** As for speed, I’m definitely not as good as flowing as I once was. For author’s names, or important parts of the case, please slow down to make sure I get it. I can handle a normal amount, but the faster you spread, the more likely I am to miss something. If I don’t get it on my flow, I can’t vote for it. Also, I won’t yell “clear.” I think it’s the responsibility of the debater to make sure everything is getting through. Believe me, you’ll be able to tell how much I’m picking up. If I’m not flowing a lot, and I look overwhelmed, it probably means you should take it down a notch.


 * Philosophy: ** I think one of the best parts about the activity is the amazing philosophy you are exposed to. I think these arguments are really cool, but also fairly complex. I don’t read Foucault in my free time, so if you’re going to run something crazy, make sure you have a simple explanation for it.


 * Speaker Points: ** Average debaters will get something like a 27. Exceptional debaters will get 30. Be funny, but don’t be mean (if you don’t know the difference, it’s probably best to not get up there and improvise). If you do a ridiculous spread, you may win the round, but you won’t get crazy high speaks.

Any other questions, just ask. I think it’s smart to know as much about your judge as you can.