Gorman,+Ryan

**Updated** March 2016
 * Ryan Gorman **

**Affiliation** Dallas Jesuit – debated for four years in high school, coached/judged for Jesuit in various capacities during college, coaching and traveling with them regularly for the surveillance topic and now the China topic.

In close, good rounds, the team that does more nuanced impact calc, where they explain why their impact outweighs any possible opponent victory path, //and gives me some "even if" statements about how to decide the round if I don't think they're winning various arguments//, usually wins the round. Fewer impacts are oftentimes better - a 2AR that goes for three or four impacts and tells me to just pick may not be happy with which one I pick. I’m not very comfortable with the whole truth/tech divide/spectrum. Not all tech mistakes are created equally, nor are all truth claims. Sometimes, tech mistakes on both sides leave me doing much more work to determine the truth than I’m comfortable with. //So, be precise//. Thoughts on "non-traditional" Affs are at the bottom, if that's what you're looking for.
 * Pressing Things That’ve Been Bothering Me Recently **

**General Thoughts** No prep for emailing/flashing – but don’t abuse that. Framing is good - explain why your links supersede the link-turns, why the solvency deficit on the counterplan means you win on disad mitigation, etc. Tell me how you want different parts of the flow (and different pages of the debate) to interact and play into my decision. I like to be included on email chains, but generally don't scroll/read through the docs during speeches, unless I get worried about clipping cards. Line-by-line is a very good thing. One well-warranted argument can beat twelve poorly explained arguments just as one qualified, detailed piece of evidence can beat twelve generic, poorly highlighted pieces of evidence. Poorly highlighted, out-of-context cards are bad, and should be called out. Smart, well-warranted analytical arguments can also beat back pieces of evidence. Everyone should flow. Re-read what I said several sentences up - evidence quality is very important to me. I think you're evidence needs to say what you claim it does, and needs to have some warrants. //That said I do not think it is my job to intervene when the evidence your opponent's evidence is bad/misrepresented/etc. - you need to tell me where to look and what to look for. It won't take much for me to get to that point, but you do need to flag it for me. E//vidence doesn't need to be amazing or perfect - but it needs to accurately portray whatever argument (or //piece// of an argument) you think it does. To that end, highlighting should be **coherent** - complete, grammatically-correct sentences, people, please - I promise, it's worth reading the extra word or two. (I've bolded this because it's one of those seemingly trivial things that absolutely infuriates me, and while it may not lose you a round, it won't do your speaker points any favors) Have fun and respect each other.

**Counterplans/Disadvantages** Probably my favorite debates, especially when the counterplan/disad combo is particularly specific to the Aff. Counterplans should usually have solvency advocates (this is less of a voting issue for me, and more of a solvency question). Link narratives should include cards and smart analytics. Don’t think that you need a counterplan to run a disadvantage – case defense is your (often tragically under-utilized) friend. When it comes to evaluating disadvantage debates, I usually default to an “offense/defense” lens. Note that the key word there is “usually” – I think that complete adherence to the “offense/defense” paradigm can sometimes result in pretty terrible disads (I used to have a quip in here about going all in on "Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link" vs. Trump Bad Elections DAs - now I just feel cold and sad inside). Enough good defense can completely take out a disad.

Here's what I wrote a few months ago about politics disads: "//The politics disad is a thing, sometimes even a good thing (politics disads kept me informed in high school, and were probably somewhat responsible for fostering my continuing interest in politics - so I think they're theoretically good) - that said, completely contrived politics disads should// //not be a thing, but will unfortunately be a thing until the opposing team tells me otherwise." // I am super skeptical of politics in the age of Trump - super, super skeptical. I will obviously judge what gets debated. But, the Aff can get very far with some smart analytics (that attack the internal-link/uniqueness level, based in critiques of the Neg evidence) about how Trump makes things we normally took for granted (political capital, for instance) different.

**Kritiks** As far as framework goes, Aff’s probably (but don't necessarily) get to weigh the action of the plan. Links and impacts should be discussed (and labeled as such) just as they would for any other arguments. It’s probably important that the link is specific to the Aff – even better if you have multiple links specific to the Aff. It’s also probably important that your alternative solves the Aff harms, or at least makes some attempt to. The Negative should bring up and defend what they think the role-of-the-ballot should be.

**Topicality**

At the end of the year, against Affs that have been run for awhile, Neg teams might need to focus more on why the particular Aff's un-topical-ness is bad (not necessarily in-round abuse, but a reason their Aff, and not necessarily what they justify, makes it harder for you to debate).

Similarly to what I said above with kritiks, links and impacts should be discussed just as they would any other argument. I do not think that the limits debate is necessarily the most important standard. I default to competing interpretations (unless a compelling argument against that default can be won), so, it is important that you talk about what other debates (not just your own) would look like under your interpretation (my earlier caveat about end-of-the-year debates changes this a bit) Evidence on topicality can be very useful and strategic, but is by no means necessary.

**Theory** Slow down. No, really. Slow. Down.

Conditionality is probably good – multiple conditional worlds that maybe contradict each other are probably less of a good thing. Most other theory arguments are probably a reason to reject the argument and not the team (yes, even if those theory arguments are conceded) - maybe you can convince me otherwise. PICs and agent counterplans are usually okay – agent counterplans that play fast-and-loose with excessive amounts of fiat may be less okay. I’m not the biggest fan of process counterplans, unless those counterplans come with evidence/a solvency advocate specific to the Aff. Just as was said above (and above that above), you should be talking about the impacts to your theoretical objection (or counter interpretation) just as you would for any other argument. When schools break a new Aff, //they should not// have to disclose //anything// about the substance of that Aff to the Negative before the round. It will be almost impossible for you to convince me otherwise. An Aff that is new to a particular pairing, but that has been previously broken by another team from the same school, is not "new."

Engaging the case should be a Negative priority. Case-specific defense (good cards, smart analytics versus bad internal-links) are great - case-specific offense is ever better. I will say that this is one of the places where I struggle with the tech/truth issue: if the Affirmative is dropping Negative arguments all over the place, that's a problem - if you're Negative and your 2NR strategy hinges on one poorly-highlighted, questionably important but nonetheless conceded piece of case defense, that might be a problem for you. Conceded arguments that do then not get warranted extensions explaining why that concession is damning, make my head hurt - please, don't make my head hurt.
 * Case**

**“Non-Policy” Affirmatives (Sorry for that probably less-than-great descriptor)** //(I've adjusted this section several times in the past year - it's usually what I update, if only subtly)// Here's my starting point: I think plan texts are probably good, and that the Aff should probably engage (at least some of) the specifics of the topic/resolution. That said, I’m sympathetic to the need to have discussions in the debate space that don't necessary follow those criteria. But I’m also sympathetic to the Neg’s need to, frankly, have something predictable to debate against. Debate isn't just a platform for advocacy, and it isn't just a game - it's a little bit of both combined to make something else entirely. I think that Negatives going for framework or topicality against these types of Affirmatives can get a lot of mileage out of arguing either that there is a "topical" version of the Aff, or that switch-side debate solves. //That said,// I don't want this to dissuade you from running these Affs in front of me - but if your access point is something other than a plan text, and the pref sheet doesn't prevent me from judging you, I want you to know my usual leanings and //still be able to win//. I'll judge what gets debated in-round - if you win that your type of advocacy is needed (that your education is uniquely good and uniquely a product of what you're doing in the debate round) and not all that bad, you'll win the round (especially if the Neg isn't doing a good job contesting those points). Tell me why the topical version of the plan doesn't do the trick, tell me why the discussions the Neg wants us to have aren't important/useful, read some great literature that backs up your point of view, etc. Teach me something new - I'm here to learn, too.

**Speaker Points** (I'm in the process of possibly upping my point ceiling, at least at tournaments where I think that the following criteria might put teams I judge at a disadvantage w/r/t clearing) A good debate will probably earn you somewhere around 28.5 – a good debate, with good evidence, and smart, reactive arguments throughout can earn you a 29 – anything higher than that, and you really impressed me. Anything lower than a 28 means there were some significant structural/strategic flaws with your speeches/arguments. I pretty much live in the 28-29 range, but will go over/under if need be.