Add me to the email chain: coltdls05@gmail.com

BIO:

Education:

*Dripping Springs HS '24

*UT Austin pursuing BA in Religious Studies in Liberal Arts Honors Program

Experience:

*Dripping Springs HS (2021-2024)

*Team Texas(2023-2024)

Event Experience:

*Worlds Schools (main event): NSDA 2024 Quarterfinalist, NSDA 2023 Triple-Octofinalist, TFA Qualifier 2023 & 2024, won and placed at multiple Nat Circ Worlds tournaments with Team Texs.

*Lincoln Douglas: (former main event) Ran K (Set Col)

*Congress: Capcon Finalist and UIL 6A Region Medalist, take this as you will

*Extemp: got a NIETOC bid novice year, again take this as you will.

Event Paradigms and Thoughts

Congress

What I expect to see in a good congress round is creative and outside-of-the-box points, clashing with opponents' arguments, questions pointing out flaws with argumentation, and most of all good articulation. Eye contact, and not reading off a piece of paper is of the utmost importance in my book, don't care what you reading off of as long as you are making eye contact with your fellow reps. Also for Presiding Officers, I will rank based on accuracy and control of the chamber, but not at the expense of making the round dull and robotic.

Extemporaneous Speaking

Rhetoric, Fluency, Eye Contact, and the basics of speech are important. I prefer more creative argumentation as well it is sourced and well warranted. In regards to sources quality>>>>>quantity. Hot take, if the tournament allows you to use a note card, use it as long as you are not reading directly off of it, use the tools that are allocated to you.

Public Address

No real experience here as well. Cross-apply a lot of the standards I have for Extemp.

Info Specific: I don't specifically care about the quality of your boards. Not all competitors have the economic resources to spend on them, if you have a nice board cool, but I'm not gonna contribute to the existing classism in debate.

Interp.

I have no experience in interp, just try to have a cohesive plot, distinct characters, and please try to be unique.

Broader Debate Philosophy:

The debate is not for me, the debate is for the debaters. It should be my duty as a judge to adapt to and try my best to listen to unfamiliar arguments that may challenge my preexisting views on debate, society, philosophy, and subjects at large. So don't be afraid to run arguments that I may not prefer, as long as you can rebut arguments against it, I will vote on it.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Tech>>>Truth

Quick Prefs based on Familiarity:

1. Identity K, Identity Trix, Medieval/Ancient Phil, Performance, Theological Args (they exist in backfiles from like 2012), Linguistic Trix

2. TRAD, LARP, CAP K, Phil, T

3. High Theory, Theory

4. Friv Theory, Trix

I did LD before prioritizing WSD. I would consider myself a progressive judge, I'll vote on anything as long as it's not absolutely repugnant and hateful. Ill update this the more I judge.

Policy Debate

No real experience in this format, cross-apply LD paradigm.

PF Debate

No real experience in this format of debate, I'm fine with spreading. I vote on the K, T, et cetera.

World Schools Debate

General thoughts on the role of the speakers:

Prime Minister/Prop 1st Speaker: Present Case, offer arguments, with links, warrant, impacts, AND UNIQUENESS. Many of the debaters I've seen do not have a proper understanding of uniqueness. Make sure to clarify how your argument is unique to your side of the house. Also, framing is important, what are the imposed burdens, what does "This House ______" mean, and what is the utilization of the model/counterfactual?

Leader of the Opposition/Opp. 1st Speaker: Same thing as Prime Minister, but you should offer a clear rebuttal of framing, and attacks upon the first two substantives.

Deputy Prime Minister & Deputy Opposition Leader/2nd Speakers: Clear up framing debate, framing and modeling should be very clear by the end of the OPP 2 unless it's a framing debate (I understand that), rebuttal/defense on your own case and attack on your opponents should be thorough on first two substantives, and you should be reading a substantive within these speeches.

Nota Bene: I will not be buying new arguments made anywhere beyond the opp 2

Propositional & Oppositional Whip/3rd Speakers:The role of this speech is to establish framing consolidated by this point in the rounds, if the Prop Whip attack the Opp. Sub 3, and identify three points of clash.

Reply Speakers: Consolidate already existing three points of clash and create a world comparison. Attempt to write my ballot for me.

Brief WSD Thoughts:

On Psuedo-Kritikal Arguments: I believe that kritikal argumentation that challenges a perspective and assumption made by the other side of the House is VERY VALUABLE. Take for example a motion such as This House supports Green Energy, I think that an Oppositional approach that challenges the idea of "Green" being centered upon the Western viewpoint of energy, and how Green energy through lithium mining and other practices disproportionately affects Indigenous populations, is an excellent path to the ballot. Sometimes the HEART OF THE MOTION or the "common interpretation" isn't actually a good thing for education or debate.

TLDR: I will vote on cases that veer away from "the Heart of the Motion" as long as the reasoning why the Heart of the Motion is flawed is warranted.

On Counter-Model Fiat: I am a strong proponent that if the Proposition has fiat power, the negation has fiat power as well. I don't know where this argument about the OPP having to "prove incentive" is odd and never heard a convincing reasoning, besides it being used as a trix-like argument in framing. For if the other Opp drops that they have to prove incentive, I'll reluctantly buy the argument, but my threshold is pretty low for responses to the arg.

Weighing on Principle v. Practical: Please weigh for me the competing principles and practical arguments. If not I will default the principle debate as a prior deontological question, and if that becomes a wash I will then weigh competing practical impacts.

Stakeholder, Structural Violence Framing, et cetera:I buy these arguments, I come from a LD background what do u expect tbh.

Notes on Style:I evaluate style on 3 three grounds in precedent:

1. Organization

2. Interaction with other Team

3: Speaking style, I try not to make this impact my decision much, I think prioritizing presentation and speaking style can border on ablism.

Notes on Strategy: Most important ground, if you win on strategy, and actual debate you'll most likely win by ballot.

Notes on Content:Content is just case writing and examples given in rounds. If your examples are proven to be false your speaks will drop.

Big Questions Debate

I secretly love this debate event, its my second favorite when done well.

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.