Barnes,+Sebastian

I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School as well as working on and off with the UNT debate team. I have little experience with the topic as of yet so please try to be explicit with what your arguments are talking about if they are specific to infrastructure.

I will be as impartial with arguments as possible. I think it should be up to the teams where the debate goes. I debated both policy and kritikally all throughout high school, and understand both sides equally. Give me a framework with which to evaluate the specific round. It may make sense to do this on a separate sheet, although generally embedding this discussion in the impact calculus is fine. If there is no discussion of framework I will almost always default to offense / defense as it is generally the most objective. (to clarify, that doesn't mean I think this is a particularly good or true framework. It's just simple and easy to use when nothing else comes up.)
 * T/ theory: T hese debates are not challenging to win, but debaters tend not to impact these debates. It's not enough to just say “They abuse us, and we lose ground.” There needs to be explanation of why that happens as well as why what you lose is critical to debate or education. If these impacts are not well explained I will default to reasonablity / reject the argument not the team.


 * Non – traditional arguements: I love experimentation. Imaginative new ways of debating make me happy, so if you are looking to experiment I will be a good judge to try that with. That being said singing me a ballad with no explanation as to why that is good for debate isn't going to earn my ballot.


 * “Dumb” / squirrely arguments: Again, I like variety in debate. If you really want to show off, and prove you can win on spark, wipeout, ashtar, or whatever go for it. That being said if you can't read these arguments in a way I would consider at least possibly successful your speaks will be docked for wasting everyone's time.


 * Argument precedes evidence. Always. No matter how much evidence you read if you are wrong you lose. I try to avoid reading too many cards after the round. If something is very well articulated in a card let me know but if you say I need to look at more than 5 cards after the round I will probably stop believing you (obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule don't let your evidence lead the debate.)


 * Unless someone makes an argument otherwise going for a counterplan in the 2nr gives up the defense of the status quo.


 * I tend to be more entertained by substance debates and I am also more entertained by kritikal debates. I will try my hardest to keep this from affecting speaks but to be honest I will probably be a point fairy if a good substantive kritikal debate happens. Also **funny ** jokes are never bad.


 * If you are unclear the I will yell “clear.” If you decide to ignore me I will ignore you.


 * Rape good or arguments like it will not be flowed because I find them morally repugnant. (I’m sure you can figure out what arguments are unacceptable, but if not I guess you could ask me.)


 * As a final note please be kind no matter what you think of the other team. Speaker points will reflect not only how well you speak, but how well you act. Treat the other team badly enough, and I could start looking for reasons to vote against you.

Hopefully this will be enough to give you a basic understanding of what I will judge like, but if you feel like there is anything I should add feel free to let me know.