Wallace,Ryan

Policy My approach to Policy is rather conventional. I’ve competed in Policy debate while I was in college and have many years of experience coaching and judging high school Policy. I’m familiar with the jargon and can flow. I’m not a fan of arguments that are (or seem to be) run without understanding; if you plan to run an exotic kritik—know what you are talking about. I don’t like evidence abuse or overtagging, do so at your own risk. I don’t mind speed but don’t muddle the structure of your case. As far as style, I don’t care if you walk around, speak seated, tag-team cross ex, I only care about the quality of your arguments. I will speak up if I can’t hear or understand you. After the round feel free to inquire regarding feedback. I tend to approach decisions from the “policy maker” framework but am also comfortable with thinking of it as a “game”, I have a very conventional default way of evaluating claims but am willing to entertain well-supported alternative frameworks.

Lincoln-Douglas My approach to LD is very similar to my approach to Policy, I understand the differences, but feel most debate theory is an extension of Policy. I never competed in LD but have judged and coached it for many years. The most important thing to me in LD (from the judge’s standpoint) is clash—I do not want to hear parallel persuasive speeches—both sides are advised to actually refute each other’s arguments. If you run a value and/or criteria, you do not necessarily need to win it to win the round. The value/criteria (if presented) are the lens through which I will evaluate the round—nothing more. As long as it’s clear, speed is not an issue. I am receptive to non-traditional strategies as long as they are well supported. I am weary of the increasingly common tactic of running confusing philosophical positions and/or lots of small arguments in a conscious effort to exploit and extend drops—this will not win my ballot.