Gallini-Matyas,+Izak

I debated 4 years at Minneapolis South High School and coached there for from 2011-2015. Bloomington Jefferson '15-'17. Now with Minneapolis Washburn.

Generally, I will vote for whatever, so run what you feel most comfortable with. The teams I have "coached" have run the most generic possible policy affs as well as Spanos/Heidegger/Queer pessimism/Malian Treasure Fleets --the only conclusion you should draw from this is that I really don't care what you do. Evidence quality matters more to me then evidence quantity, but only as much as it makes your analysis of it better. I like warrants and I want you to tell me about them. I generally don't call cards unless there is a dispute about what they say, so controlling spin and reading the other teams evidence is important in front of me. I will ask to be on the email chain/get the flash drive every time around to save time at the end. I tend to be expressive while judging. Interpret my expressions at your own risk.

Prep time for paperless- Don't care. If it gets ridiculous I will make jokes at your expense.

Theory- I will only vote for theory arguments that justify their remedy with warrants. That means a conceded one liner won't get my ballot.

Some other theory defaults (can change based on arguments in the round) - I evaluate conditionality the same whether you read 1 or 5 advocacies, Perms are a test of competition. I buy reject the argument not the team, especially for perm theory.

T- I default to competing interpretations and voting on potential abuse, but can be convinced to do otherwise. I've seen a lot of neg teams do good work on T in the block and then decide to go for something else that was over-covered by the 1AR. If you are definitely losing elsewhere consider going for T, I'd honestly rather have to sort through a messy T debate then sign my ballot right after the 2AR (someone finally took me up on this but they lost. still probably worth it.)

Kritiks- Definitely down for whatever. My favorite K debates have extensive link analysis, which leads into impacts and reasons the case can't solve. Alts are cool but if you've turned the case effectively, you don't always need them. "Framework - no kritiks" doesn't have a good track record in front of me. "Framework- let us weigh the aff" is a good argument but against most kritiks you don't need spend a ton of time there, instead you should be justifying why your aff is true. If the neg is doing specific analysis, then you probably don't have an aff to weigh. If the aff is doing specific analysis defenses of their method/rhetoric, then that will almost always beat the more generic reasons your aff is false. I have trouble with a lot of "Role of the Ballot" debates for similar reasons. I am uncomfortable with "judge choice" - tell me those other secret reasons the aff might be good if you want me to vote on them. FW vs K affs - I judge a lot of these debates. They come down to links and impacts like every other debate.

CPs/DAs- I believe that winning a solid defensive argument breaks a disad's logical chain (this is especially true when the argument is conceded, if there is some answer you have a lot more work to do). Impact comparison that implicates the other side's internal links is always greatly appreciated. If you want me to judge-kick your counterplan for you, I have a high threshold for 2nr explanation of why I should do this, and a low threshold for 2ar explanation of why you should be stuck with it.