Gilbert,+Shane

Shane Gilbert Albuquerque Academy '12 Updated: 10/14/12

I will use the framework that is justified by the debaters in the round. I do not view the value/criterion as necessary and am open to non-traditional case structures. I want to hear about the topic, framework should not be the whole debate. I can flow medium speed and will yell clear when I can't flow you. I am ok with theory and default to competing interps. I have a high threshold for Kritiks and will vote off of any of the following if done well: RVIs, Perms, Plans/ Counterplans. Most importantly, be nice and enjoy yourself.
 * Brief Version**


 * Theory**
 * I default to competing interpretations.
 * Abuse is fine as a voter.
 * I default to the mindset that fairness outweighs education, but if you argue that e > f and win it, I will accept it.


 * RVIs**
 * Will evaluate like any argument
 * Will vote off it if you win it


 * Kritiks**
 * You need have a clear tag.
 * Please, please impact your Kritik when you initially read it.
 * I have a high threshold on Kritiks. That being said, if you have an awesome Kritik that you're really digging, chances are I won't throw it out and will evaluate it like any argument.


 * Perms**
 * I think Perms are legitimate responses to Kritiks, and, if well done, I will drop the K.


 * Plans/ CPs**
 * If ran well, I'll vote for you. As noted above, I admire non-traditional case structures.


 * Weighing**
 * The earlier, the better.
 * Start off the 2NR and 2AR with framing the round.


 * Speed**
 * I never sped debate myself, but I flowed a lot of high-level rounds so I flow a medium speed (300-325wpm). If you're going too fast, I will say clear twice. After that, I will stop flowing.
 * Slow down for authors/ taglines.

**Evidence** I hold that credible arguments necessitate evidence. In general, I will prefer arguments supported by evidence to analytic arguments. That is because in most cases I feel that experts writing on the topic are probably more qualified than any of us in the round. This is especially true of empirical arguments.

**Framework** I am open to alternative frameworks. As a general rule, I do not enjoy rounds in which the majority of the time is spent on framework. Battling Util/Deont dumps are frustrating and boring to judge. I want to hear a debate about the topic. Framework should explain why topical arguments are important, they should not consume the whole debate.

I will drop you if you make any argument that:
 * Don't do these**


 * creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone who is watching the debate.


 * explicitly argues that something that we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc) is actually a good thing. This could either be an advocacy or a framework that, and the debater acknowledges that, says horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something horrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason to not accept your framework, but I will not drop you for it.

**Speaks** Things that will help your speaks.


 * Good weighing, explaining the interactions of the arguments
 * In the last speech, you should be explaining what argument you're about to win, winning that argument, and then explaining why that justifies a ballot for you.
 * The best debaters are very upfront with their arguments, the warrants for them, and what they justify. If you are fair in explaining arguments to your opponent, the round will be much more enjoyable, and you will be rewarded for your efforts.

I will average around a 27.5. If I give you between a 28.5 and 30, I think you did well and should clear. A 28 means that you probably won the round, but out-rounds could go either way. If you get between a 26 and a 27, I believe there are several facets of debate you need to improve. Anything below a 26 (rare) means there were problems with your debating style.

**Important Note** I only competed in LD at a novice level, and focused on high-level PF and extemporaneous speaking in my debate career. That being said, the LD team at my school, some of my best friends who all went to VBI for several years each, continuously educated me about the event. I am familiar with almost all LD terminology and what it means. In addition, I have been able to understand late out-rounds at St. Marks, Apple Valley, Harvard, etc. However, you should not debate under the assumption that my knowledge is more extensive than this paradigm. If you're afraid about something before the round, talk to me and I'll let you know about my experience with it.