Warner,+Dylan

Cypress Bay High School '14 University of Michigan '18 (not debating in college)


 * Background:** Debated LD in high school for 3 years on the local and national circuit. No bids to the TOC.


 * Short:** Run whatever you want. I'm not going to argue that I don't have any preconceptions about debate coming into a round, but I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't affect my actual decision. If you run an argument, win the argument, and warrant why that argument means you win the round, I will pick you up on it regardless of the type of argument. I primarily ran kritiks and I tried to avoid theory at all cost, but that does not in any way mean I will drop you if you run theory or something that's not a K, just note that I wasn't the best at debating theory so I may not be the best at judging it. Also, I haven't debated since high school so I'm out of practice, and the last tournament I judged at was Bronx 2014, so I'm definitely out of practice. Be aware of this when you break out complex arguments or spread at insane speeds.


 * Long:**


 * My debate career:** I was a pretty lazy debater at times, so I wasn't the most successful debater at times. I never received a bid to the TOC despite competing on the national circuit. This isn't just me trying to be modest, I'm saying this to serve as more of a warning//:// I debated in high school and I debated on the national circuit, but (a) I wasn't that good to begin with and (b) I'm out of practice because I'm not debating in college. I've heard that bad debaters make the best debate judges, though, so maybe there's hope for me. But until that is determined, be warned. If you're an uber-successful debater, don't be completely sure that I'll understand all of the deep, complex philosophy you spread out at 10,000 wpm or the very technical, theoretical arguments layered secretly into some paragraph theory. I wish I could understand it all, and hey, maybe I'm better than I think I was, but I'm not going to be naive and say that I'll 100% understand everything that the debate community produces. You've been warned.


 * Views on debate:** I was taught that debate is a game, and that's usually how I viewed the rounds I walked into. But it was also heavily hammered into me that the debaters control what their debate is and that anything goes. What that means in terms of my judging philosophy is that debate doesn't have to be a game for you. Like I said in the short summary at the top of this philosophy, I will do everything in my power to make sure that my ideas of debate do not interfere with my decision. You can interpret debate however you want and if you tell me why I should interpret it that way to, I will. If you win the argument, warrants and everything, and win why I should vote off of it, I will vote off of it. I didn't even follow my own 'debate is a game' paradigm a lot of time, and it's part of the reason why I love debate so much. It can be whatever you make of it, and it's not within my jurisdiction as judge to say whether or not you can argue something.


 * Case Structure:** If you want to run a "traditional" LD case, with a value and value criterion followed by some contentions, that's fine. I don't care, and the structure of your argument doesn't matter to me. You will not be judged more harshly (?) because you chose a more traditional case structure or a more radical one, so don't feel like you have to read a K because that's what I primarily debated with. You don't even need a common structure, so don't feel like you're confined to the basic VC/K/Plan format. But framework is really important, especially because I believe that debaters define what the debate is about. You need to tell me what to vote off of and why to vote off of it, so you should probably have a framework. But you don't have to, I guess... Again, I'm not gonna tell you what you can/can't do. Fight the power, maaaan.


 * Kritiks/Performances:** By my senior year in high school, I ran almost exclusively kritiks, with a few of plans and a couple of performances. They're my preferred argument, and that was probably heavily influenced by the people who taught me how to debate. If you don't like kritiks, that's cool, don't run them. I won't pick you up or drop you simply because you decide to or to not run a K. I prefer that the K has some sort of relevance to the topic, but again, you don't need to do that if you don't want to. Performances are fine by me as well, I ran two performances in high school and I'll take anything you want to throw at me. But like I said before, be warned in my abilities, especially in comprehending the convoluted beast that is K literature. Also, role of the ballot arguments are important with this type or argument especially for a lot of the same reasons that FW is so important.


 * Theory:** The bane of my existence in debate. People who knew me on my local circuit knew that the most strategic way to go about beating me was to whip out a theory shell in round. And, likewise, probably the most strategic way to go about beating me as a judge is to whip out a theory shell in round. I was bad at the theory debate. I really disliked the theory debate (probably only because I was so bad at it). So, if you want to run a theory argument in round, just note that (a) if I couldn't hold my own in a theory debate I probably won't be a good judge of one and (b) I will probably not have a good time if I have to judge theory. Have you ever tried to get something from your mom or dad? Every kid knows, you wait until they're in a good, jolly mood before asking to sleep over at a friend's house. If you catch them in a bad state, it will be that much harder to get what you want. The same applies here. Now, I //will// vote on theory and I will drop your opponent on theory if you tell me to and you win the argument. It will just be more difficult for you, particularly because there's a higher chance that I make the wrong decision in a close theory round because of how bad I was at it. The only reason you will be at a disadvantage in running theory is not that I'll vote differently because I don't like it (because I won't) but that I'm not a good judge of it. Because of all of this, I tend to sympathize more with arguments like RVIs, and I default to competing interpretations. So, read all the theory you want, just know that you've been warned, I may not be the best judge for the job.


 * Plans/DA/CP:** Do it if you want. My original 'coach' was a policy debater, and my school's policy team was more developed than the LD team, so a lot of arguments I ran in high school were policy-oriented.


 * Extensions**: If an argument is completely conceded I don't feel like you need to spend a whole lot of time extending it, but, with that being said, don't skip it and assume I'll extend it for you or anything like that. What I did generally, and what I tend to think is sufficient, is re-read the tag line and source, refute any arguments on the argument or explain that there weren't any, and explain what this argument means within the scope of the round//.// I often didn't do that last part of that process, but it's probably the most important part.


 * Speed:** I competed on the national circuit and I spread when judges were fine with it, but like I said above, I wasn't the most successful debater. So, similarly, I wasn't the best spreader. As a general guideline, if you're a successful debate on the national circuit, your top speed is probably too fast for me. There have been debates where I hit a crazy successful debater and I can barely flow the taglines, let alone comprehend their argument. So, being out of practice, the same principles probably apply. I will say 'clear' if I can't understand you for whatever reason, and one of the biggest reasons someone is being unclear to me is because they're being too fast. So try to slow down if I do that, and watch my flowing to see if I can follow you completely.


 * Ending thoughts:** Debate is, inherently, an educational activity. Now, that's not saying that education is important or anything like that, but I believe that debate is educational. However, don't take that to mean that debate has to be about the topic at hand, with statistics and case studies and all of that. Education doesn't just come form debating about the topic specifically, it can also come from (and I feel like it primarily comes from) the debates that people say are usually noneducational. I could probably talk a little about conflict diamonds in Africa or the statistical benefits of rehabilitation in prisons, but not much else quantitative knowledge has stuck with me from my time competing in debate. The knowledge I gained from debate, and where I think debate is most educational, stems more from the critical thinking involved and quick argumentation than from quantitative knowledge. And I don't think education is at all hurt when students start to question the premise of a debate round itself. In the end, just play the game how //you// want to play it, not how I or anyone else believes it should be played.

Email me: dwarn@umich.edu