Githens,+Patrick

Paradigm: Tab Experience: 3 years of debate at Olathe North High School in Kansas. 6th in the Nation and 5th speaker at NFL senior year and just finished my first year of collegiate debate at NYU. Assistant Coach at Bronx Science now.

T: No predisposition to hating this. I am biased that the Aff should have a topical plan text, but have violated that rule myself so it’s all up for debate. Usually evaluating in a competing interpretations framework, but can be persuaded to vote on reasonability. When running, make sure all the standards are clearly explained and impacted out. I don’t like being left to my own devices at the end of the debate. T is a voter, never a reverse voter. Running RVI’s on T will piss me off and cause me to tank your speaker points. K’ing T is fine, but be sure to explain why their silencing action is a reason to make them lose the round/arg. Debaters seem to not understand that these debates shouldn't be as fast as a DA debate or something of that level. If you are going for T in the block or the rebuttals, don't go as fast as you would through your capitalism blocks.

CP’s: Absolutely Love them. Run whatever CP you want. Extremely open to all types (Consult, word pics, multi-plank, etc.), just be able to defend the theory that gets thrown back at you. CP needs to either be textually or Functionally competitive.

DA’s: Don’t really know what to say here. Run whatever DA you want. They are all fine. (I feel a need to make a specification here. I think these new intrinsicness perms on Politics DA's are one of the dumbest arguments out there. Not saying I can't be persuaded to vote on it if it's dropped or handled horribly, but it's an uphill battle.)

K’s: This is probably my weakest part. I am familiar with a few authors and have run them (Most Security authors, Zizek, Heidegger, Foucault) and can evaluate most authors just fine. I don’t sit around reading hippy European philosophers though so don’t automatically think I’ll understand what you’re talking about. This shouldn’t be taken as “don’t run the K”, but instead as “clearly explain to me what you are talking about”. Neg needs to win that the K turns the case or the Alt solves.

Theory: I’m open to all theory (even things like the stupid Re-spec argument from the alternative energy topic). Almost all theory needs an interpretation and I need to be told why that interpretation is superior to the other teams. If you are running some crazy new interp that no one has heard of (such as pre-round condo) explain to me how it works and solves back. I don’t lean either side on theory and vote strictly on the flow. Give me a clear abuse story. I can be persuaded to vote on potential abuse.

Framework: Everything is fine here. Run whatever framework you want.

Performace: I’m new to the whole performing thing. I would probably be able to be persuaded to vote on it, but would need to have it explained to me. Tell me why this act of performing is key etc. I need to know why I should care (just like any other argument).

Offense/defense: I will not vote on defense alone. You will not win if there isn’t some offense on the flow

I’m big on the impact calc. It really helps me with my decision to hear things like magnitude, probability, time frame, etc.

I default to util absent being given another option. If it comes down to saving 1,000,000 or 1,000,001 I will vote for the latter.

I vote on the flow to absolute best of my abilities at the end of the debate. That being said don't leave me scorched earth at the end of the debate. Those debates are very difficult to decide and usually require me to call in some form of intervention no matter how hard I try to keep it out.

Speed: Almost all speeds should be fine. I really just need to hear clear tags (especially on paragraph long kritik tag lines) and clear dates so i can follow your extensions and signposting on the flow. If a piece of evidence needs to be heard/read, the debaters will make an issue of it and i'll call for it. I yell clear three times and then I stop flowing. It's not my fault that I can't understand you

Cross-x- doesn't really affec the round past speaks for me. being funny or being an jerk effects points. It also doesn't look the greatest for your partner to answer every question and may lead to speaks being docked ( this is not universal though as sometimes having your partner answer can't be avoided)

I feel like I’m leaving something out. Any questions just ask.