Gyourko,+Mark

 I debated for three years at Strath Haven (PA). I don't debate in college, but I still judge and coach part-time. Please email me at mgyourko@gmail.com if you have any further questions. Also, please feel free to email me if I judged you. I usually take detailed notes on my laptop and am glad to share them with you.   I think my predispositions usually do not end up impacting my decision-making, so take everything I say here with a grain of salt. Do what you do best; I just want to hear a good debate. If you don’t have time to read through this whole thing, the bolded bullet points are what you really need to know:       The rest of this is very disorganized. Here is a rambling list of some things I think you should do: 
 * **I make my decisions based off the flow**. Regardless of your argumentative preferences, you will win the round if your arguments beat the other team’s on the flow. Be clear on the line-by-line, and do detailed impact calculus and comparison in the rebuttals. Explain your arguments fully and articulate what a ballot for your team means.
 * **I believe the affirmative should endorse a topical implementation of the resolution by the USFG, and the neg should respond to the 1AC.** Framework is a strong strategy against teams that do not do this. That said, I have voted for affs that don't defend the state and negs that don't link to the 1AC, and this probably won't change any time soon. However, you should strongly consider striking me if your preference is to perform.
 * **Be clear, and don't spread theory/T.** As long as you are somehow signaling when you change cards and actual words are coming out of your mouth, you can read cards as fast as you want. I recommend slowing down slightly on tags, and I implore you to slow down during theory and T.
 * **My kritikal knowledge base is poor**. I have a baseline understanding of the most common kritiks, but the more obscure you get, the less likely I am to know what you're talking about. This is particularly true if you read at a million miles per hour or your K has lots of fancy words in it. This is OK, and I'd even dare to say that I like Ks. But it does mean that in the block you need to very clearly and slowly explain the thesis of your K, why it links to the aff, what the role of the ballot is, and why I should vote for you.
 * **The rules of the tournament are not up for debate**. One team will win, one team will lose, and speech/prep times are set. Prep doesn’t end until the flash is out of your computer.
 * **Don’t cheat**. **Please.**
 * Disclose your aff and past 2NRs before the round
 * Flow the whole round
 * Use the wiki to at least some extent
 * Be respectful of your opponents, tournament staff, and the space in which you are debating
 * Come up with smart, analytic takedowns of their stupid cards or arguments. Evidence is useless if it is misinterpreted or logically incoherent. I am a strong believer in an offense/defense paradigm, but I also believe that in some cases, analytic defensive takeouts can result in 0% risk of a disad/advantage. Moreover, you should go for presumption if the other team’s aff is really, really nonsensical and you’ve pointed that out throughout the debate.
 * Not expect me to evaluate new arguments. You can (and should) expand on your previous arguments in the rebuttals, but entirely new arguments (claim-impact pairings) are no good. Also, as a heads up I was an angry 2N, so I really won’t be moved by new 2AR arguments.
 * Keep overviews to under 30 seconds. An overview should explain your thesis and do some basic impact framing. You do not need to do it all there, however. Use the rest of the flow; it will make it easier for me to vote for you.
 * Extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation when going for/defending against T. Unless their interp is terrible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is usually only risk of offense for the team that extended an interp. I don’t think it is possible to win a T debate on the aff without extending a counter-interp, unless you are 100% sure you meet their interp. Similarly on the neg, it’s not possible to win without extending an interp unless you are 100% sure they don’t meet their own interpretation.
 * Make sure your T interps are actually interpretations/definitions. Not everything can be T evidence.
 * Not read more than 2 conditional advocacies. My general guidelines: 0 or 1 = good, 2 = maybe, 3 = not good, 4+ = just don't.
 * Use all of your CX time. You’re robbing your partner of prep if you don’t. I don’t care if you have to ask for your opponent’s opinion about the weather or Taylor Swift, just use the three minutes.
 * Have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot. The community has seen a trend toward equating the question of “What should the role of the ballot be?” with “What is the most important issue that could be confronted in this round?”. While this sometimes works well, many times it does not. Ground your arguments about the role of the ballot in what it means for debate as an activity. Your RoB should be portable and applicable to any round.
 * Be as technical and specific as possible. Our democracy is broken because our political discourse is composed of vacuous, vague assertions instead of the deliberation of directed policy questions. Debate is a great place to break from that.
 * Not expect me to kick the CP for you unless explicitly told to.
 * Remember that fiat is about what the USFG *should* do, not what it would do. Arguments like circumvention, rollback, or "Trump trumps" (apparently this is a thing!) are almost certainly illegitimate.