Williams,+Alex

Alex Williams

Judge Paradigm

I debated LD for four years at Niskayuna High School (located in upstate New York, graduated in 2008). My debating style in high school was eclectic: I used speed, theory, kritiks and spreads in some rounds, but other rounds I would go slow, run positional cases and go big picture. I appreciate all types of debating styles, but the round is always decided on substance rather than style.


 * **Voting Issues** - I will give you the ballot for any reason as long as a convincing argument is presented. The easiest framework to adopt is the traditional value/value criterion structure - if this is the case the round is decided on impacts and weighing. I will accept more complicated or non-traditional frameworks (multiple criteria, kritiks, etc.), but you need to tell me why. I will also vote on "debate theory arguments" about fairness, education, etc. But you need to make a **//strong//** case for me to vote on something other than the resolution. All voting issues must be presented at the first possible opportunity (AC, NC, and turns in the 1AR), and they must be extended and weighed later on.
 * **Speed** - I prefer moderate speed so that I can think about what you are telling me while I am listening. If you go really fast I can usually keep up, but I will just be writing things down and I won't understand the big picture until after you sit down and I review my flow. I find that this is often not a good strategy because I am usually unable to reconstruct your argument perfectly from my flow. I will call for cases/arguments after the round to make sure that my flow does not contain inaccuracies. **However, I will not add anything to my flow that I missed during your speech.** Two tips: 1) I will yell "Clear" or "Slower" during your speech if you ask me to. 2) I find it really effective if you read your cards/warrants very quickly, and then //**slow way down**// to summarize the argument during the impact. I can usually follow you if you do this.
 * ** Esoteric Philosophy ** - Do not mix this with speed. You will lose me. I was a neuroscience major, not a philosophy major.
 * **​Statistics, Common Sense Arguments, Facts, etc** - Feel free to talk quickly, I will follow you here.
 * **Kinds of arguments I like** - Generally, I am willing to vote for any position that you present as long as it is well supported. However, I am much more inclined to accept certain lines of argumentation than others. In general, I like practical philosophy and arguments based on statistics and facts. In short, I like writers like Chomsky and Hitchens over Derrida. I won't necessarily vote against Derrida 100% of the time, but it may not be worth it to spend 3 minutes making an abstract, philosophical argument that can be outweighed by arguments with concrete/physical impacts. On the flip side, if your opponent is running a complicated philosophical case, don't feel like you need to spend a lot of time attacking it directly. To get my ballot, it is often equally effective to just focus on your side of the flow and outweigh it with practical arguments.
 * **Speaker Points** - I award speaker points for effective argumentation – a combination of speaking style and argument strength. As I said before, I appreciate all debating styles, so just do what you a most comfortable with.

Please talk with me after the rounds if you want to know a decision. You can also email me at alex.h.willia@gmail.com and I will get back to you. If you disagree with a decision please tell me why. I like having constructive discussions with debaters after rounds to improve myself as a judge, and hopefully help you get my ballot next time around.