Timmis,+Ryan

School: Groves High School Preclusions: Groves

I debated for four years in high school, and have been judging on and off since 2007. I can't say with 100% certainty that I won't vote for a specific argument, but know that good arguments will always do better than bad. If you're running something particularly stupid like Timecube, Ashatar, or wipeout, chances are you're going to do very poorly in front of me. Same thing goes for anything patently offensive (racism good, Holocaust good, kill whitey, etc.). Anything that could qualify a shenanigans is a bad argument. You know when you're making bad arguments. Don't. I have a pretty poor poker face, so pay attention to if I'm, say, nodding my head and smiling (good sign) or staring at you with my mouth agape (bad sign).
 * __In General:__**

__**Specifics:**__
 * Critiques**- A good K debate means you actually have some understanding of the underlying philosophy, can articulate a clear link and impact (not just "turns all of their case!" with no further explanation of why) and either have a clear alternative or else can articulate a reason why an alternative is not needed. However, if you are unable to do so, you will most likely not win the argument. If you read a K aff that doesn't read a plan text/defend enactment of the plan, you should probably strike me. Don't assume I'm familiar with whatever argument you're running; though I'm more often than not familiar with the writings behind it, the specific form you're K is taking in round often bares little resemblance to what the author actually says. Also, buzzwords should be avoided. If I can't differentiate what you said from the sort of nonsense you get out of the postmodernism generator, you're in serious trouble. Basically, if you can't explain the K in language people use when they //aren't// trying to confuse other people into submission, chances are you'd be better off going for a different argument. Also, watch for performative contradictions here: if you're reading a critique of war discourse and a DA with a war impact in the same speech, you're going to face a serious uphill battle to persuade me on the K. I see absolutely no reason why neg flex means that arguments made by you in one flow can't be applied to another flow or that the neg can sever out of representations but the aff can't. Lastly, though I try not to let it affect me in round, chances are I think your authors are full of it. Impact turning K's therefore warms my heart.


 * Theory-** I tend to have a relatively high threshold for theory. I can definitely be persuaded to vote on theory, but you need to spend a significant portion of your final speech on the subject if you expect me to vote on it. Everything else being equal, I tend to default to my general rule: good arguments are good, bad arguments are bad. If you're arguing multiple contradictory conditional advocacies bad, you're in a much better position than if you're arguing dispo bad. Also, I don't appreciate one-line theory arguments that are simply asserted to be voting issues, and will almost never evaluate them if I can help it. The burden is always on the person advancing a theory claim to prove it's a reason to reject the team and not just the argument.


 * Topicality-** I'm more than willing to vote on T if you do it well. You want to do some work on framework (i.e., competing interpretations vs. reasonability) if you want to win on it. You also need to explain why you interpretation is better. Chances are, much like theory, you probably will need to spend your entire 2NR on it if you want me to vote here. I went for T a lot in high school, which makes this a bit of a double-edged sword. If you do it well, I'm going to be happy. If you don't do it well, however, I'm not. I also tend to frown upon flagrantly ungrammatical or arbitrary definitions. Aff's should run an at least arguably topical case. I am not easily persuaded of critiques of T. If you are under the bizarre impression that T is a weapon of exclusion, you should almost certainly strike me.


 * Counterplans-** In general great. If it's actually competitive and has a net benefit, a counterplan is the most generally effective negative policy strategy available. The key phrase in that last sentence is "actually competitive". If you're running, say, a consult counterplan, no matter how much you try, chances are you're not going to win competitiveness without a major dropped argument by the aff. Same thing goes for the vast majority of process/condition counterplans- anything that competes off of normal means probably doesn't actually compete.


 * Disads**- Love them. Specific links and well researched disads I haven't seen before will result in awesome speaks for you. Controlling the link is probably more important than uniqueness (e.g., the economy may be bad now, but that doesn't mean making it worse isn't bad).


 * Overviews-** Generally a good idea, especially in rebuttals. A well done overview frames the debate, picks out important arguments and helps me start evaluating impacts. Though this is generally only an issue in novice rounds, overviews belong on the top of the flow, and saying something to the effect of "impact calc on bottom if I have time" will generally lose you speaker points.


 * Technique stuff-** While offensive arguments are almost always preferable, good defensive arguments can get you far. You can definitely win 0 risk of an argument. Impact defense especially is underrated. A dropped argument is a true argument, but does not have any more meaning than is articulated in round. Any argument that isn't explained/impacted will generally be given the least charitable explanation possible, dropped arguments included.


 * Pet Peeves-** These will all lose you speaker points: saying "mark the card" and not marking the card; SPEC arguments/vagueness; tagging Mead 09 as nuke war/extinction; reading spending disads with an internal link about credit downgrades written before August; any T Substantial argument making it to the 2NR; being called "judge". I'll add to this section as I think of it.


 * Speaking-** On carded arguments, I can handle whatever as long as you're clear. If you're not clear, I will yell out "clear". If you don't get clearer, I will miss arguments, and I will feel absolutely no shame about that fact. On non-carded arguments (especially T and theory), slow down. If you're getting through a 10 point theory shell in under 30 seconds, I will miss arguments, and I again will feel absolutely no shame.


 * Demeanor-** Try to have fun in there, that's why we're all here. If you're a funny person, use it to your advantage (though for all of our sakes, please don't force it if you're not). There's no reason to act super stressed during a round. Also, though I feel like this should go without saying, act like a decent human being during rounds. There are few things less fun for me as a judge than watching someone berate their partner or be openly condescending towards their opponents or be otherwise douchey. Aggression during is good, hostility is not