Charles Clark Judging Paradigm

I have been around the policy debate community for a total of 6 years now. I debated in high school at Olathe North High School in Kansas for three years and have debated three years in college at KCKCC, UMKC, and now at Wisconsin-Oshkosh. While in high school I received numerous speaker awards and consistently broke at Kansas tournaments. While in college I have received speaker awards including top speaker at the UL-Lafayette Tournament and was also the 2009 Phi Rho Pi Community College national champion in both one-person policy and two-person policy debate.

Specific views on Arguments:

Procedurals/T: I tend to enjoy a good T debate. The way in which I evaluate these debates are based more upon competing interpretations and which interpretation is more preferable. I usually reach this conclusion based upon impact analysis which should be clear and precise. Also, RVI's are not worth your breath in front of me.

Theory: I also enjoy good theory debates. Although I ultimately believe that conditionality is a good thing and is slightly necessary for the negative, as a 2AC I have been convinced many times that conditionality is bad, specifically when it is multiple conditional advocacies. However, if you are going to go for conditionality, it should be a substantive portion of the 1AR, not just a small investment of time. Further, I believe that although it is debateable, most PICs, Consult CP's, Delay CP's and Process CP's are fine.

CP's: These are my favorite type of debates. Within these debates the negative should almost always be able to win that the CP solves the case, or if it doesn't, at least be able to win that the net benefit outweighs the solvency deficit. Negatives should also have to win that the CP is preferrable to the world of the permutation and should constantly be making DA's/solvency deficits to the perms. Finally, I do not believe that "we solve better" is a convincing net benefit, but if that's your style of debate, go for it.

K's: I'm usually handle these debates pretty well since I'm rather well read on most K authors. Although they're not my favorite debates, do not be afraid to go for a K in front of me. When you do happen to go for a K in front of me, make sure that you're very clear on the link story and then also how the alternative functions. If I'm unsure how the alt functions, it's going to be hard for you to explain yourself out of the permutation debate. I also believe that framework debates tend to be compelling arguments against K's, if argued correctly that is. I'm also fine with Kritikal affirmatives, seeing as I've ran them throughout college. I just think that if you take that approach that you should at least have a plan text or at the very least an advocacy text.

Stylistic: I'm more than fine with speed, just make sure that you're clear. Also, at the back end of debates it's always nice for the rebuttles to give some form of an overview in order to clarify the way the round is playing out. In CX, make sure that you're nice to your opponent. I won't reward you for being a jerk. Some humor, if appropriate, is always nice as well.

Ultimately, do what you do best. I don't want you to not read specific arguments in front of me. It's your debate so you should be able to do whatever you want. If you have any further questions regarding my views on debate you can email me at clarkc64@uwosh.edu