Heather Woods -- Baylor
Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.
Judging philosophy:
Heather Woods Debate Experience: Undergraduate: 5 years at Kansas State University Graduate: This is my first year out. I coach at Baylor University. Sic ‘em bears. OVERVIEW: This activity is about you. Out of respect for the time and energy you put into this activity, I will do my absolute best to adjudicate the arguments presented to me without transcribing my own personal views on them. That being said, I have some preferences that I default to in the absence of good 2ar/2nr framing. Remember--you’re better off if you ‘do your own thing’ in front of me, and then consult this to see how to tweak your strategy for maximum winning potential. I read evidence but I won’t reconstruct the round. Speaker point boosters include: humor, swagger, debaters who understand the utility of the phrase “even if…,” and debaters who go all in on risky strategies. TOPICALITY: can be a voting issue, although I generally default to reasonability. My general position is that the resolution is a starting point for discussion, and the affirmative has a myriad ways in which to affirm it. However, despite my debate background in creatively affirming the resolution, I have voted almost equally for and against ‘cheater’ K affs in clash of civ debates. It surprises me too. When I vote on T, the 2nr almost always 1) explained why competing interpretations was a useful framing and won his/her interp was best 2) explained why switchside was good, real, and demonstrated a topical version of the aff 3) extended arguments –claim, warrant, impact— about why a) the aff’s education standards were bad, or politically debilitating and b) the aff’s education claims/other standards are outweighed by loss of core neg ground/predictability and then listed the ground they lost and why those positions are good for debate. In other words, don’t yell ‘Abuse, Juuuuudge’ and sit down. I will be frustrated. Do impact comparison and you’ll be just fine. FRAMEWORK: is usually not a voting issue, but rather an argument that suggests how I should ‘frame’ the debate and which impacts are most important. What is my role in this debate and what should I value most? Should I be a policymaker who suspends disbelief and evaluates an existential threat by counting bodies? Should I be an activist who disregards distracting nuclear war impacts in favor of focus on structural impacts? (Note: these are not the only positions a judge can occupy.) Please develop your arguments over the course of the debate—the 2ar/2nr should be the conclusion of a thorough discussion over what we’re doing here and what debate means. It usually ends up that whoever did the better job painting me a picture in the 2ar/2nr wins this flow, and usually the debate. Negative teams: If you want me to reject a ‘cheater’ K aff, you are probably better off advancing a framework argument in addition to a topicality argument. THEORY: Run what you can get away with. If no one calls anyone else out, I’ll assume you all agree with whatever’s going on. What this means a) I will let you decide what cheating is b) be strategic - Use the negative’s shady-ness to justify your shady perms. However: a) Please slow down so I can get all of your args. B) Please impact your arguments. Cheap shots are irrelevant unless they have an impact. Default: Conditionality is probably good. However, I’ve been convinced to vote otherwise. COUNTERPLANS: PICS are probably okay. I like language/reps PICS if they’re well developed, especially if the net benefit interact with the aff’s advantages. CPs should have a net benefit. You don’t have to go for the CP to go for the net benefit. If your counterplan is particularly intricate, or if it involves a lot of jargon or acronyms, assume that I don’t know anything about it and over-explain. How does this interact with the aff’s methodology/time frame/mechanics? DISADVANTAGES: were not my bread and butter in college. As such, I need you to explain in depth not only your positions but frame my ballot in terms of impact calculus. If there’s some nifty trickster internal link you want me to pick up on, be explicit and make sure I’m there with you. THE K: My bread and butter. Here are some details: ) Performance. Totally cool with me. Do what you do. Defend what you do. Tell me what matters. Interact with their arguments. Explain why your biz comes first, outweighs, turns, whatever…the aff. Is form a net benefit? Explain it as such. Framing. Do it in the block, but please, please, please do it in the 2nr. ) One-Off: Also cool. Be specific to and interact with the 1ac. You should probably read some case arguments, too. Please don’t destroy my flow. If you’re going to divide the 2ac up, please do it in such a way that I can recognize what arguments you’re responding to. If you choose to get crazy with the flow, make me happy in the 2nr by describing the most relevant parts of the debate, what they say and why they are wrong. (Most final rebuttals could benefit from this) ) Generic v Specific: I prefer links that are specific to the aff. I understand that Cap, the Imperialism K, etc are staples, but I reward a well-crafted speaker points and if well-executed, with the ballot. Don’t have super specific link evidence? Bring the hotness by using specific logical arguments and examples that put your arg in the context of the CASE: should be debated as a part of your larger K/CP strategy. The more specific, the better. Well reasoned analysis can get you far, even in the absence of evidence. I would dismiss an advantage if the negative could explain why an advantage’s was poorly crafted or internal link work was super shoddy. Affs should use their 1ac strategically to answer args. PAPERLESS: is pretty awesome. Don’t abuse it. Prep time ends when you hand your opponent the flash drive/upload to the dropbox. Don’t prep while this is happening. Don’t mislead the other team by flashing them a 75 page 2ac document. I will be happy to let the negative take your prep to figure out which cards you read. CIVILITY: One of the reasons I love this activity is because I love the community. Remember that we’re all in this together. You don’t have to be sugary sweet to your opponents, but be respectful. Win with dignity and lose with grace. If you are debating a younger, less experienced team and you are cruel, your speaker points will suffer. If you are openly racist or sexist or homophobic, your speaker points will suffer.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: