Wingham,+Zavier

Background: I participated in CX debate for Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center - Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas for four years. I debated at both national, state/local levels, primarily seeing success my senior year. I debated a few tournaments under LD, so I'm versed in the format. My debate style was pretty standard - policy debate/policy issues, varying with a few Ks. Due to the topic, my senior year I primarily incorporated K's and framework arguments in my policy style. I've read most power-relation K's and understand their function/love them. I currently attend the University of Texas at Austin, studying International Relations and Middle Eastern Studies.

Affiliations: Law Magnet, Dallas. Primarily judge LD debates, but don't mind judging CX.

In Round: Don't be offensive. It's the simplest rule that many people forget - we are all human and we make mistakes. In round actions have harms - i.e. don't claim dehumanization and claim that the opponent/other team made stupidest move, or worse "retarded," argument of their life. Essentially, conduct yourself like a young adult and don't be an arse.

Arguments: Critiques: I don't mind them, but I'm not going to vote you down/up because you ran one. You will lose me on the K debate if you don't articulate the story enough, i.e. the link, impact, alternative, solvency, etc. Even if I do understand the critique because it's one I'm familiar with, I'm not going to do ALL the work for you. If you run a critique, you better be able to explain it during CX - WITHOUT using the language of the tag or the evidence. Contextualization in laymen's terms is always the best method for explaining a complicated subject (ex: explaining psychoanalysis shouldn't be as complicated as a philosopher). A good link, impact, and alternative analysis will win my vote. With that said, world comparisons is a MUST. A good debater can explain an argument, but a great debater can explain the K and compare it to the AFF world. Also, running several CONFLICTING and CONDITIONAL critiques in the same round = NOT a good idea. I'm also a fan of performance critiques - if they are done right, the team will perform well in my view. However the same rules apply. As far as linguistic critiques/critiques of pedagogy, because I've learned additional languages, I don't see the construction of language the same way others might, therefore EXPLAIN it.

Theory: If you feel there is a reason to bring theory up, then do it. However, you need to contextualize the in-round abuse, not just the hypothetical abuse. Theory should be established the same way topicality is - interp, violation, standards, voters. This is the surest way to nail down an opponent and win theory, considering not many people provide an interpretation anyway.

Disads/CPs: Grouping these together because it's essential that you run these two in tangent. Claiming the status quo as the single solvency mechanism to the world's problems isn't too logical. Make sure the DA is a net benefit to the CP, otherwise it's a worthless argument.

T: My standards for T are the same as theory, however if you think T is a winning argument, you need to articulate why the team should be voted down on topicality in the block. A ghost/feeble extension of topicality with an expansion of it in the 2nr isn't cute nor cool. RVI's on T = things I don't evaluate, unless it's actually a legitimate reason.

Debate round in general: - Line by line is essential - Clean up the flow in the rebuttals. - Compare your world versus the world of the opponents - Spreading is fine, just speak clearly. - Make smart arguments. - Warranted information is necessary.

Evaluation of the round: I'm pretty open to every argument there is and would like to consider myself pretty tabula rosa. Although, I find myself more often than not, having to default on clear impact analysis rather than better debating. You set the role of the ballot = I'll assume that mindset and evaluate the round through that perspective. Any specific questions, feel free to ask me.