Wixson,+Andrew

Andrew Wixson Baylor '18 Conflicts: Valor Christian Last updated summer 2014 Background: I debated LD at Valor Christian High School in Highlands Ranch, CO and graduated in 2014. I qualified to NFL Nationals twice and cleared at circuit tournaments.

//** LD Paradigm: **//

I default to the basic offense-defense paradigm and love to see weighing between the two. One great argument is better than 20 terrible ones.


 * JUDGE INTERVENTION -** I try to be as tabula rasa as I can. An argument is claim, warrant, impact. Keep in mind my paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and does not mean I'll refuse to vote for you if you do certain things. I will naturally tend to accept weaker responses on that same note. I'm not afraid to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities.


 * SPEED -** While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed. Clarity is the issue. I value quality over quantity so don't spread for the sake of it. Slow down on analytics, tags, and author names. I will yell clear but would rather not and it may mean I don't fully grasp your argument, naturally making it harder for me to vote on it.


 * BEST STRATEGIES -** Debates I like to see, in order. (quoted from Christian Tarsney) “(1) [creative] philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) “critical” debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates.” Deont. vs. util. is obviously okay, but try to go deeper than that.


 * AFF BURDEN ** - You have to have a present an advocacy that is topical. I tend to prefer concrete advantages on policy-based topics and ethical theory on moral dilemma topics, but justify anything. Observations can be killer if well warranted.


 * NEG BURDEN ** - I default to equal ground, meaning the Neg needs some shred of offensive ground back to the counter-advocacy you choose. This means "reject the AFF" arguments are not fair game, unless you justify why this works (read: read an NC unless you have a theoretical justification for running off cases). The only exception is when an AFF plan is read. I find that this offsets the timeskew, so don't whine about time skew in your AC. Please make sure off case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many Negs have one strategy that doesn't fit that well to answering the AFF. Instead of yelling "OFF" and making us all guess the structure of case you're reading, label your off case to make it easier for me and your opponent to know exactly what you're talking about.


 * CREATIVITY ** - I place a large value on creativity. Great framework debate revolving around real, substantive philosophers will make me happy. Running the same Gauthier or Cumminskey card that everyone else is, will not. Do not read policy backfiles.


 * CX ** - CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax. Be funny and likable. Perceptually dominate and be intelligent.


 * KRITIKS ** - Kritikal lit is awesome . Don't assume I know your K, even if you think it's generic. The only one I am very familiar with is Foucault/Biopower. Run a framework at the top of your K. This makes weighing so much easier. If it's a bunch of cards that are obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I really don't have a reason to vote on it.


 * DISCLOSURE ** - I'm lax about disclosure. Do it, don't do it, it's all good. If you are disclosing, don't pull a fast one and give your opponent an alternative version. I hate disclosure theory, especially when run against a strug who would be easy to beat on case.


 * THEORY - ** Be careful to address substance first and foremost in front of me. I default to reasonability, drop the argument and fairness as more important than education on theory. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges. Don't run theory for the sake of theory without any reasonable abuse and discuss the real issues that the resolution raises. I will not under any circumstances vote on potential violations. That being said, clearly blatantly abusive strategies should be checked by theory. I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.


 * PRE-FIAT & MICROPOL -** I'll be very slow to vote on pre-fiat or micro-political positions. I like listening to them, because I love debate and philosophy, but I rarely see a reason that they access the ballot. To quote Larry Liu, "Debate is fictional discourse—i.e. I do not believe that a debater is defending his real, actual beliefs."


 * TOPICALITY ** - I default to competing interpretations on T. These are some of the most driest and uninteresting debates, but if your opponent is blatantly untopical, go for it. I'd prefer that it's short and sweet and layered with other strategies.


 * SPIKES & A PRIORIS ** - I'm not the judge to run blippy spikes and cheap tricks in front of because I will be very sympathetic to responses. I have a distaste for no-risk arguments that are a time suck and can be kicked later, so run them at your own risk. Also, //a prioris// suck. If you prove they're true, I'll vote on them, but avoid blippy prestandards.


 * PRESUMPTION ** - I default AFF on presumption, but don't put me in the position where this matters.


 * DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS ** - I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. A well-placed culture or philosophy joke will make me laugh. Relevant opening anecedotes that make an emotional connection, whether through humor or empathy, are underrated. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best. Don't try to emulate x other debater just because he got a bid last week. Great weighing and crystallization wins championships. Be enjoyable to watch, don't take yourself too seriously, and close doors the entire debate. Doing those well will make me want to vote for you, period.

I'll disclose, including speaks if you ask.