Gartner,Griffin

I have experience with Policy and Lincoln Douglas debate and am from Concordia College in Minnesota. I competed for Blaine High School for 4 years, 3 of those were in Policy and 1 was in LD. Policy is on top, LD is on the bottom, PF is on the way bottom. =**Policy**= I have run critical affirmatives as well as stock issue cases so don't be afraid to read anything in front of me on the Aff. That being said I expect that the Affirmative be "In the direction of the topic" unless you give me explicit reasoning for why (blank) is so important that topic education can be set aside (a high burden but doable). For negative I am familiar with K literature but I expect you to be able to express through your evidence/analytic and CX that you understand your kritik(s). Speed is all fine and dandy just make the tags are clear (that means say AND or NEXT when transitioning between flows/arguments). I will say "clear" once before setting my pen down and smiling at you for seven minutes. No Tag team, I think that this practice allows some partners to dominate the cross. Along with that, I have never seen a lawyer during cross sit in place of their witness, thus why should debates get to have such surrogates? Call your prep responsibly. I understand that files can take time to send and be a general pain, but if you are stealing prep by stopping it and finishing up an analytic before sending it, then you are the worst kind of person and you know what you've done. Hyperggression will lose you speaker points, nobody likes a jerk; however, being curt and abrasive is the name of the game.


 * Specific Stuff**

For Aff: I usually default to reasonability so telling me how the Neg's interpretation is out of context etc. will usually win you this flow, but "Judge be reasonable we are totes topical onto the DA" is not enough! Give me a counter-interp and a contrived we meet if you can to gain the most offense. Answering standards is also a must, that and/or reading your own and COMPARING THEM.
 * Topicality**- I love a good topicality debate and I feel that it is a technical skill that is fading within the community. First, when you are running a T shell I would prefer a clear explanation of what the violation is from the get go. Second, standards matter and need to be impacted within the context of the round (that means proven abuse!), if you don't have proven abuse but properly weigh the implications of the Aff's interpretation then that can be enough. Keep in mind that if you are going for T in the 2NR it should be only T (unless you are leveraging a DA that the Aff spiked to prove abuse, that's ok. Actually that's preferred). Note that this is in the context of a USFG plan of some sorts, I will talk about K Affs under Framework.

Quick note: On the education topic, private schools and related vouchers count. There is plenty of lit here.

For Aff: I usually give the negative a lot of latitude with DAs but if you can point out clear warrants (carded or analytical) that prove their internal link story false then I will buy that as good defense. To win the flow though you need offense, so utilize turns and case outweighs arguments. Those are my favorite because it always generates focused comparative debate.
 * Disadvantages**- Specific disads and impact comparisons go together like peas and carrots. To win with a disadvantage I need the negative to WEIGH THEIR IMPACTS AGAINST THE AFFIRMATIVE'S IMPACTS, it is not enough to say, "Extend my UQ and then my link and then extend my impact which leads to extinction so vote negative because they cause extinction." Sure that extends what you need but it isn't a compelling story, tell me why an increase in terror is comparatively worse than a sluggish economy, tell me why the disadvantage rolls back the Aff or takes out the Aff's impacts. Good Internal links are also important, I am happy and find it quite easy to vote on a, "our internal link turns your affirmative (blank) advantage" argument, so tell me a reasonable story and I'll vote on it.


 * Counterplans**- I love well researched competitive CPs with a clear and well-impacted net benefit. I despise pics so don't run them (yes, that includes 50 States, Consult, and word pics). One of my favorite 2NRs to see is CP plus DA with case defense and risk analysis to defeat the perm. That being said, I think you need to be honest with yourself within the round. Does the CP sufficiently solve at least part of the case? Does the solvency deficit comparatively outweigh the net benefit? Is the CP really competitive in light of the Aff's perm articulation? All of these questions need answers in the 2NR. Also, I really don't think that a, "1% risk of the X disad means you vote on the CP" is enough risk comparison to justify ignoring the rest of the debate.

For Aff: CPs almost always have solvency deficits somewhere. Keep in mind that the CP is supposed to solve your harms better than you can, so applying your awesomely specific solvency evidence can usually gain you a lot of ground. Couple that with a perm and some good case outweighs/turns the NB arguments and you should do fine. Note though that you need to explain how your perm works. Saying, "perm do both. Onto Politics" just isn't enough for me to consider it an argument.

For Aff: I believe that a good examination of the alternative in comparison with the plan/perm is necessary to win. CX is most important on this flow because you need to lock the negative into something to prevent sneaky K-tricks, this is also a lovely time to expose their ignorance toward their Kritik. Also make sure you understand where the Ks impacts are in the debate. Are they post-fiat? Are they about rhetorical violence? Are they about faulty knowledge production in the debate space? If you don't know which layer of the debate the K is on, then you have just set yourself up to be framed out of the round.
 * Kritik**- I used to be a K debater and think that Ks are valuable within the debate community. A few thinks that I need from the negative are: First, a substantively explained alternative! You can have the best link and impact ever with some killer framework that makes the K A-priori and still lose if your alt isn't flushed out. Keep in mind that I don't think the Alt has to be "realistic" (whatever that means) so if your alt is about in round discourse, or total rejection, maybe even an anarchist uprising, that's all good. Just make sure that I know what it is and why it is both better than the plan and can't be done with the plan. One more thing on Alts, just because you run a reject alt does not mean that the perm goes away, it doesn't. Second, is a clear link. This should be obvious but if you don't link very well then I usually think that a "pragmatic perm" can solve. Links should be your best friend, link their cards, their discourse, link everything and it can fuel your perm answers as well as your impacts. Third, case specific impacts. It is not always enough in the 2NR to weigh the eventual destruction of the planet from cap against the Aff's immediate econ collapse threat. A much more compelling argument is an impact that says that the K controls the Aff's impacts. Think specific root cause. Finally, give me a role of the ballot to clean up the debate. I love in round impacts and stuff that pulls the focus from the plan proper, but unless you are running "fiat is illusory." well, then you still have to answer their post fiat extinction claims.


 * Framework**- This is specific to affirmatives that defend something other than a topical plan implemented by the USFG. I find most all discourse to be valuable and a debate about the role of debate as an activity is one that I enjoy. Overall I believe that K affs are legitimate and completely welcome so long as they are in the direction of the topic. With that said I have a high threshold for framework, and I think that dropping case entirely is non-strategic and gives the aff way too many avenues to defeat this argument. I honestly don't think that an aff that lacks an advocacy statement of some kind can win, that is just because I feel that the negative has a right to debate a stable advocacy. I also do not think that "framework is genocide" and will not give much weight to those arguments. That being said, I do think that "Framework is white and exclusionary" arguments are good. I will give credence to application of case against FW to prove that a discussion about (blank) is very important. Important note for both sides that I want to make very clear, both sides need to defend an interpretation of what our lovely community looks like if everyone debated following said interpretation.


 * Theory**- don't be abusive, just don't do it and I wouldn't have so many headaches. Permuting your silly pic isn't abusive. Having two Ks or two CPs isn't abusive (having two Ks AND two CPs is). Kicking out of arguments isn't abusive. And I will only entertain Spec if you have proven abuse (they were super dodgy in CX then no linked your DA or whatever). Specifically, Conditionality is a negative right, performative contradiction is not. Severance abuse has to be clear, such as if the aff changed the interp of their plan text to spec out of your DA. Finally, I am happy to vote on the sentence, "Judge this is abusive, you know it when you see it." when there is obvious shifting and shenanigans going down.

I really love good cross examinations. I practically flow them because of how pivotal they can be within the debate. Destroying an offcase in CX and translating that into a convincing speech will give you some good speaker points and will likely win you that offcase.
 * General Comments**

__**Comparative analysis and round breakdowns/overviews are what win debates for me. If you aren't the most technically savvy debater that is alright with me. You can get away with a few minor drops so long as you have an intact thesis and excellent worlds comparisons. DO NOT think that this justifies dropping arguments, it just means that big picture can still salvage your round when things get rough. Give me a story in your speeches, win more debates.**__

Good evidence wins debates. An extended and cross applied warrant is infinitely better than tagline extensions.

Make good arguments, win more debates.

Any specific questions please ask.

=**Lincoln Douglas**= I am a very traditional LD judge who looks big picture far more than line by line. Lincoln Douglas debate isn't one-person policy so I do not treat it as I do policy. I enjoy substantive debates about the resolution and I believe that every case (aff and neg) needs a value and and a criterion (standard) with which to weigh the round. I will give all arguments credence but here are my default theoretical stances unless given substantive reasons to shift.


 * Kritiks**- I enjoy critical positions and unique values/criteria however I refuse to shift the focus too far away from the resolution. This means that I don't buy role of the ballot arguments. In the same vein, I don't think that alternatives exist in LD.


 * Counterplans**- The resolution is not the theoretical implementation of a policy, therefore counterplans are all nonresolutional and wont impact the debate much farther than proving that I shouldn't presume affirmative.


 * Disadvantages**- The resolution is not the theoretical implementation of a policy, but I think that there is still theoretical grounding for DAs in so far as they are impacted back to the framework.


 * Plan Affs**- I think that the aff needs to defend the entirety of the resolution. Especially when the resolution doesn't use the word substantially, plan affs are cherry picking offense. I also think that plans without disclosure make too high of a negative burden, even considering the aff's time constraints.

I can handle speed and do not think that it detracts from the debate, however, there should be a brief disclosure of whether or not you will be running speed to your opponent.

Make good arguments, win more debates.

Any specific questions please ask.

=**Public Forum**= I have quite literally copy pasta'd this from Sandy Berkowitz's philosophy. I have much respect for her judging style and agree with her interpretation of PF debate.

// Basically, I believe that public forum should be an event that is adapted to and can be judged by any interested citizen. A couple of specific issues in terms of judging: //

// • The crux of public forum is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that address the resolution, are well organized, are well reasoned, and supported with quality evidence that is explained. // // • Good analytical arguments are useful but not sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument. // // • It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. //

// Certainly, since public forum is about the citizen judge, it is important to be smart, polite and even assertive. But, do not bully. And, enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day. //

A quick note, I feel that the standards for evidence quality in PF debate has degraded to an unacceptable level. You as debaters are responsible for the content of your cases and malignant falsification or misapplication of evidence will be met with extreme prejudice.


 * A final note for all who make it this far and actually use the Wiki. I believe that adapting to the judge is an important thing to do, so an added carrot will be placed for you all to grab.**
 * Any debater who uses the words: Cornucopia, Dazzle, and Frowzy** **correctly and gracefully within the round will be rewarded with speaker points.**