Wyatt,+Hayden

I debated for Spring High School, in Houston, all 4 years of high school. I am a double major at the University of Arkansas (Philosophy, History). My beliefs about debate have drastically changed from what they were when I competed. I will evaluate whatever is run in front of me; however, you should be mindful of my personal preferences about specific arguments as well:

**Some General things** · Speed: Please know that I am not the best at flowing. I have no problem saying “clear” or “speed” a few times if I cannot understand or can’t flow your arguments. Be cognizant of this and help me, help you. Because I am bad at flowing, tricks and spikes have a poor chance of making it on my flow, so if there is something you want me to hear SLOW DOWN. If it is not on the flow I will not vote for it. · Debaters who can combat the spread in a slow, communicative way impress me. · I no longer find it necessary to provide a traditional value/criterion framework structure. Just be sure to give me an explicit standard to weigh offense with.

**Policy arguments** I am probably most comfortable judging these types of rounds. You MUST provide a solvency advocate if you plan on running a plan/cp. To be clear, I don’t think that you will solve 100% nor will your opponent so it becomes a matter of who solves the best/most. Additionally, please weigh your arguments!! If you don’t, I will be forced to do the weighing for you and intervene. I tend to think that conditionality is bad.

**Kritiks** Chances are I will understand whatever philosophical content you use. However, you should not assume that I know what you are referencing or how you are applying it to the round in question. Rejection is typically not a sufficient alternative in my eyes. Furthermore, these debates, in my experience, get very muddled very quick. As such you should slow down and explain how the argument functions in round. Getting my vote with a K is probably harder than winning with other arguments, but if you do I will reward your speaks.

**T/Theory** I have really come to enjoy T/theory debates. It is extremely important that you slow down for these arguments. Standard comparison is a must. I find it difficult to vote on an RVI, but it has happened before.  Theory: I default and am easily persuaded that it is a matter of reasonability and to drop the argument. Education trumps fairness. In all honesty, I don’t believe that fairness is a voter. These are just defaults, and they are exactly that, I will evaluate whatever you run. Disclosure theory seems to be an argument that evades debate and therefore, is not one that I am particularly fond of.  Topicality: I default that this is a matter of competing interpretations, that education trumps fairness and that I should drop the argument.

**Speaks** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You start with a 28 and it goes up or down from there based on your clarity and strategy.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I am pretty much open to whatever you want to run. If you have any questions just ask, and I will be happy to clarify.