Gentile,+Mike

Affiliation: University of Kentucky, Georgetown Day School

Debate was a gigantic part of my life for the first 26 years of it. In the interest of full disclosure, you should know I haven't judge a high school debate since the winter of 2010. I'm sure some things have changed and others haven't. I will do my very best to evaluate your arguments but you should not take for granted I understand as much about the particulars of economic engagement with any of the topic countries as you do.

I think debate is a wonderful activity because the debaters themselves get to decide what each round is going to be about. Because of this, I try as hard as possible to let what the debaters have said and read in the round be the sole determining factors in my decision. However, I do have some things that I believe and/or will do when I judge you:

-The offense/defense paradigm is silly - If a no spillover or no link argument is won, it can mean zero risk of disadvantage. good defensive arguments are enough and should be deployed more often.

-Most theory debates on both sides tend to be very tedious - all sides speaking way too fast and make lightly warranted claims without a bigger picture analysis of what their interpretation of debate will look like. There is generally very little clash or interaction between each sides' arguments. I think this generally ends up working to the negative's advantage. I think there are some reasonable theoretical objections to a wide variety of counterplans and critical alternatives, but I don't end up voting affirmative on these arguments very often because the negative generally wins the war of attrition against these arguments. I am more than willing to vote on theory but it needs to be argued and impacted like any other position.

-Reasonability is a powerful argument against competing interpretations - the most limiting interpretation is almost never the best interpretation for educational purposes. Ground is a much better place to determine the viability one interpretation vs. another.

-Framework is very rarely a theoretical reason to reject a critical argument deployed by the negative - it is more effectively used to prove why the level of analysis your impacts privilege should be preferred over the negatives.

-The Planless affirmative - I think there are some legitimate concerns about the fairness of an affirmative that doesn't advocate government action. I think there are also some legitimate concerns about debate not being as diverse a space as it could be because of pedagogical practices like framework that can silence alternative ways of viewing the question the topic poses. I think both sides overreach a bit. I don't think voting AFF signals the end of debate and I don't think voting NEG signals the end of progress in debate.

-Everything I have just said here is merely a preference - I have voted against what I prefer all the time. My preferences will not matter if you do your job by persuading me what I should prefer. Do what you do best, enjoy yourself and you will do just fine.

-Paperlessness - I never did it. I couldn't do it. I will be flowing on paper. I like off-case positions to be named. I like arguments to be numbered and answered in a structured way. For more thoughts on this topic please read this: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/sharp%2C+jon. Oh and your prep time continues until you have jumped the doc to the thing and giving to the whoever. Kids and their crazy gadgets...

-Try a Little Tenderness - We are all super competitive people. We have honest disagreements. We all really want to win. I'm pretty sure we all also love debate and that means we all have at least that in common. So let's try to keep that in mind when we interact with each other.

If you have any questions, do ask me please.