Garvey,+Frank

Frank Garvey:

Overview:

I debated for three years (National Service, Africa and Alt. Energy) at Cedar Cliff High School in Camp Hill, PA with some success at a regional level. I never went to a national tournament, but I did qualify to the PA State Finals my Junior Year. I also debated for a year at George Mason University, and now am an assistant coach at my old high school.

Now, to the line-by-line

1. The K

I was primarily a policy debater. While I will listen to a K, and do enjoy it if it is well-executed, you should do a couple of things: 1. Explain the link to me in painstaking, excruciating detail. And make it specific 2. Explain to me how my vote can change the world. I mean, I will tell you that I’m important, but the rest of Earth probably doesn’t feel the same.

I'm not good with K literature, Foucault has never been on the top of my reading list.

While I do enjoy watching the aff engage on the K, I don't mind a debate on framework, or util, util works well too.

Kritikal affs:

While I don't mind them, you should definitely have a plan text.

2. CP’s: CP’s are fun and fundamental. I have no problem with a team running a PIC, or an Agent CP, or any type of process CP. If you can convince me that it is competitive, I won't mind. I have no serious prejudices towards CP theory

For the Aff: I like to hear about Solvency Deficits. And Perms, CP competition is pretty important.

3. DA’s: I love DA’s, and there are some great ones out there on this topic. Because I am a political junkie, I love any type of a politics scenario.

I'm fairly certain that perming a DA is a stupid idea, in the end, it's better to simply attack the link instead of having to deal with intrinsic theory issues.

4. T:

It's always a voter, no matter what. I'm sorry, but you're going to have trouble convincing me otherwise.

I don't know which is better way for evaluating T: reasonability or competing interpretations. I am tab in this area. It is your job as a debater to tell me which is best for both the round and this activity itself.

5. Theory: If it's your thing, I don't mind. While I am more apt to just reject the argument instead of the team, if you can convince me that egregious abuse has occurred, I will have no problem punishing the offending team.

6. Speed: I have no problem with speed. Just be sure to enunciate your words. If you don’t, I’ll yell “clear.” If you don’t listen, I’ll flow as much as I can, but I am only human and will probably miss something

7. Case: I am a huge fan of case debates. I'd like to see a lot of blood on this flow.

8. Misc

Impact Calculus is key to debate. Tell me why you outweigh and should vote for you.

Cross-X is not only binding, but is also essential for assigning speaker points.

And never call me “judge.” My name is Frank, and I want to be your friend, in a completely non-creeper way. I'm pretty casual and like to make the round fun.


 * For Paperless Teams: Kudos to you for trying to save money and being eco friendly. I have no problem with granting some leeway when it comes to prep time and transferring of evidence for computer issues. Don't make it too much of an issue though.