Wilder,+Bryan

Last edited Feb '13

I debated at Legacy High School. I graduated in 2011 and went to TOC my senior year. I currently coach Lake Highland Prep and have taught at the National Debate Forum.

General preferences- these are things that I like/will presume to be true, but any arguments made by debaters will change these. In general, there is nothing that I refuse to vote on.
 * I presume that the resolution is a truth statement.
 * My preference is to see nuanced philosophical debates. I enjoy seeing innovative positions that display a deep understanding of the issues involved. I'm fairly well read in most areas of analytic philosophy. I haven't read much continental philosophy, and most of what I have read hasn't been particularly compelling. If you choose to run those arguments, make sure to both clearly explain them and link them to a framework. I'm fine with evaluating util debates but find that most debaters aren't able to effectively defend consequentialist frameworks, at which point the util debate becomes irrelevant.
 * Arguments don't have impacts if they don't link back to a standard. For example, if you say that skeptical arguments lead to bad impacts, you're missing the point. Similarly, an explicit standard needs to be defended in the AC for it to have an impact/prove the resolution true.
 * I'm perfectly willing to evaluate arguments that prove the resolution true/false prior to the normal standard, but be prepared to explain why they're logically prior and how they relate to other such arguments. I'm also fine with contingent standards, but I much prefer to see developed arguments that follow naturally from the philosophical position being advanced instead of ad hoc skep triggers scattered across the flow.
 * Speed: I typically don't have any problem keeping up. I'll say clear/slower if need be. I usually don't call for any arguments. In general, I'll only call for stuff if there's a dispute over the content of what was read, or I feel that I should have been able to flow the argument but didn't for some reason.
 * Micropolitics etc: I dislike positions that indict or endorse a debater for something external to what they did during the round. For example, a discourse argument indicting a debater's language in round would be fine (and probably appeals to the same sorts of concerns as a theory argument), but a position asking for the ballot in order to bring attention to some cause wouldn't be. I don't think these discussions are usefully framed in a competitive environment where the other debater has to engage the position as something to be beaten on the flow.

Theory- I'm fine with it. While I find substance more interesting, I will still evaluate theory that I personally view as unnecessary like any other argument, and you will still get good speaks if you execute that debate well. Generally, I think that this area should be as open to debaters' own interpretations as possible. I'm interested in seeing well developed meta-theoretical positions that more deeply address how we should view theory since a lot of those issues are not very well thought out at the moment. I also think that the analysis in the voters of 99% of theory shells is terrible, and there's substantial strategic value in defending a much more robust conception of what normative goals frame debate.
 * I presume competing interps because I don't want to intervene on what constitutes enough abuse, and because I find that thinking about theory in terms of norm creation generally makes more sense. I'm open to reasonability if an argument is made and some threshold is set for what constitutes a reasonable interpretation.
 * I am willing to evaluate arguments for why fairness and/or education isn't a voter, though most (but not all) of the ones that I've seen have been terrible. I do not assume absent an argument that fairness and education are important. Debaters often operate under the shared assumption that they carry some weight even if a voter hasn't been read, for example as reasons to prefer an interpretation of the resolution. In that case, I'll go along with whatever that assumption is unless the argument is explicitly made that there's no reason fairness/education matters.
 * I am predisposed to think that RVIs and offensive counterinterps are good. In a significant number of rounds, debates over offensive counterinterps have come down to whether the standards justify that particular plank in the interp. My resolution to that debate has typically been that if theory is competing interps/norm creation (which it always has been in these rounds) then voting for the counterinterp is good in the same way that voting for the original shell is good: endorsing either interpretation sets a norm for debate, and voting against the debater advocating the other interp is part of setting that norm. So, if theory is competing interps, then absent a clear argument for why there's a distinction between the way that the original interp and the counterinterp function, I will default to thinking that an offensively worded counterinterp is a reason to vote. If theory is reasonability, then arguments that are typically made for RVIs are probably necessary to justify the link to the ballot.
 * I'm not a fan of AFC. I'll still evaluate it, but I think that the arguments against it are good.
 * I don't like disclosure theory, or in general, any theory argument that applies to debaters' out of round practices.