Gatz,+Delaney

Hi all.

My name is Delaney Gatz, and I debated for Wooster HS of Wooster, OH for my whole high school career. My experience in a nutshell: I've been to nationals twice, was the Ohio State Champion my senior year, and just missed a TOC bid at Glenbrooks that same year. I currently help coach for Wooster HS. As far as my judging philosophy goes, I would consider myself tabula rasa, but I know that can mean different things to different people so here's the rundown:

__Rate of Speech__: All speeds welcome, but please be clear. I'm a stickler. You don't automatically get speaker points because you're lightning-quick.

__Argument Quantity vs. Quality__: Rest assured, if your strategy is spreading your opponent as thinly as possible, I won't be happy. I love in-depth, nuanced argumentation.

__Cross-X__: Some tag team cross-x allowed, but don't tool your partner. Everyone's a free, independent thinker.

__Can I get away with being a dick?__: No. Not to your opponent, not to your partner. I also frown on smart-assery. None of these are essential to winning a debate round. I will dock you severely if you can't conduct yourself pleasantly.

__Topicality__: Fine in my book. Legitimate violations preferred, but then again, what's legitimate is your debate.

__Disads__: Fine as well, even generic disads.

__CPs__: Love 'em, especially those of the functionally competitive variety.

__Kritiks__: Fine. If you have lengthy, jargon-filled tags, read those slower. I like getting the gist of the K the first time through. Affs should resolve their case both in and out of the context of the K.

__Framework__: Necessary analysis in my eyes if you run a K. I like having a method to resolve the interactions between the competing worlds.

__Theory__: Everything fine except for object fiat. I will also be strongly compelled to vote on multiple conditional worlds bad if you have more than one conditional CP and one conditional K (making that a grand total of two conditional worlds allowable). My stance is that the more conditional worlds you have, the more you will likely kick out of, making all analysis done by both sides worthless and needless. Argument resolution is the primary decision factor in a debate round for me, much more so than "He dropped my 4th conditional argument, vote here JUUUUDGE."

Aside from all of this other business, hypo-testing, fiat theory, etc. are also welcome and make for entertaining debate if argued properly on both sides.