Gilbert,+Trent

=**Background**:= Stanford University '21 Valley HS '17 Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and now coach at West Des Moines Valley High School. During that time, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior year and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year. I acquired 12 bids total during my career, cleared at the TOC my senior year, and was awarded ninth at Nationals my senior year. I've also worked at both NSD and VBI as an instructor.

If I had to guess, I think I'll probably approach rounds similarly to TJ Foley, Leah Shapiro and Evan McKinney. since they all influenced my understanding of debate in some way (Evan and TJ because we were all pretty close teammates that prepped together and debated similarly and Leah because she was most involved in helping me prep my Junior and Senior Year/influenced my strategic vision a ton). Dave McGinnis and Christian Tarsney also had an incredibly formative influence on myself as a debater (and person), though I think I probably approach theory debates slightly differently than they do.

=**Overview**:= I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive or one of the theory shells I've outlined below. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on direct line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament in any way and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

**Theory:**
I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to whats assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

//If no one seems to take a stance// on any issue, here are my defaults: 1) I default to fairness and education are voters. 2) I default to drop the argument. 3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI) 4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate. 5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory. 6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. **If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.**

=A few more things you should be cognizant of:= 1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend **slow**ing **down**. Also, for very technical debates it is best to **signpost** clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments. 2) While I read mostly framework heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round. 3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments). 4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well. With that said, if you refer to yourself as "we" in the debate round, I'll probably laugh and dock a few tenths of a speaker point because either a) you're not debating by yourself in the round in which case you're probably cheating in some way or b) you're trying to seem cool by acting like you're in policy debate, in which case you should probably reconsider why you're competing in LD and not Policy (LD is more than just one-person policy— I promise!) 5) I am generally against intervention on theory and will evaluate shells as they were read. That said, **there are a few shells I am particularly biased against** that you should not read in front of me (if you plan to win): a) **disclosure theory**: maybe in the abstract disclosure could be good but I have not been persuaded and have only observed disclosure theory in debate rounds being used as a bullying technique b) **brackets bad theory**: debate is an educational space, and brackets are obviously okay in educational spaces (read the MLA handbook if you don't believe me). Worry not: if your opponent has bracketed in words that are contrary to what the card actually says, I will ruthlessly punish miscutting (and will be particularly compelled by a miscutting bad shell). 6) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.