Gesik,+Colin

Background- I debated for Sprague High School in Oregon, went to multiple national circuit tournaments in LD with fairly good success. I now debate College Parli for Lewis and Clark College.

General Debate thesis: This space is for you, not for you to conform to my ideologies. So, if you want to judge in a certain way or change the normal practices how I ought to judge, please provide me a method to do so (ROB, Alt, etc.) However, without some other alternative I normally default to the flow of the argumentation that is presented, and the framing of how I should evaluate certain arguments. Flashing doesn’t count as prep, and please add me to email chains: cgesik@lclark.edu

Specificities: Theory/T: I will have a lower threshold than most on theory, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t execute it well in front of me. I will need a clear interp and counter interp in order to resolve the questions about the text of the interp, and whether certain “I meets” or “we meets” are true. Something that is also very helpful for me when going for theory is weighing between interps and standards, so I can have a cohesive ballot story in the end. I Default to Competing Interpretations, No RVI, Drop the arg on most theory, but drop debater on T. Meta Theory is good, but I’ll listen to arguments that say otherwise. Disclosure theory for me is in a grey area for me, I won’t paradigmatically oppose it, but I’m pretty convinced by people from small schools don’t have to disclose. However, if the other debater has similar resources or access to the community as many large schools have, or if it is egregiously under covered, I will vote for it.

K’s: Their pretty cool. I don’t have any particular preference as to what literature you read, but if it some dense postmodern criticism please go slower on tags. Also, it would be nice to have a ROB, but if you don’t that is fine.

Kritikal aff’s: Their cool as well. I’m pretty open to wherever you would like to take the discussion as long as it will not be traumatizing to anybody in the room. Other than that, just give me a reason to prefer your method, and Ill adapt. Theoretical arguments are legitimate against these positions in my mind, but you would have to win it in order for me to vote on it.

Da’s: I dig them. The good ol Disad outweighs and turns case is pretty compelling.

CP: don’t really have any preferences here. Whether PICS, International CP’s, States CP’s are justified, that’s up for you to decide.

Framework in LD: I don’t have a preference as to what framework ought to be evaluated. That is something for y’all to decide, so if it is won the flow ill evaluate the rest of debate through its lens. If there is a presumption or permissibility/contingent standards in the framework, go for it. But something that is lacking in a lot framework debates is the lack of comparison of meta ethical standards, and weighing the rest of the debate through such lens.

Speaks: Im fine with Speed If you are clear on tags, I really don’t care too much on the clarity in the card. If there is something wrong in the text, that is burden of your opponent to call. I reward speaks base of strategy, not off of speaking or clarity. I tend to give high speaks, averaging a 28, nothing below a 27 usually, and if there are strategic decisions made on both sides ill give 30’s.

Evidence: If there is a evidence violation, please make it a cohesive argument, and pointing to parts in the card to where I can verify the violation. Clipping is bad, so if there is video support of the violation I will give a L 20. If there is a dispute between what a piece of evidence claims, please say why is the text of the card different from the tag, point to a quote in the text, and ill determine whether such claim is valid.

Extensions: I have a low threshold on extensions, especially in the 1ar in LD. So, if you just say “extend X tag” I will do it. But you should probably do further analysis on how that effects the rest of the debate for strategic purposes.

If you have any questions, you can email me at cgesik@lclark.edu.