Gramzinski,+Logan

I debated for 5 years at Samford University, qualifying for the NDT 4 times and advancing to the octas.

See: Ryan Galloway

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible. That being said,


 * Dropped is true


 * Love the politics disad


 * Think the Neg is getting away with too much lately


 * Prefer to see the topic debated

T/Theory: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. Conditionality is probably a reason to reject the CP or stick the neg with the CP. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan.

Ks: I will be the worst judge for generic Ks in the country. Specific link work will win you debates in front of me. Aff: win the alt doesn’t solve anything. Ks that don’t prove the plan is a bad idea are losers.

Performance: No thanks.

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the other team’s.

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep.

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something.