Garnick,+Jonah

Jonah Garnick

Debate Experience:

I debated 4 years of policy debate for Beacon. I also judged a lot of JV and Novice rounds my senior year and I am currently volunteering with the NYCUDL as a judge, and as an assistant coach at the Brooklyn Debate Resource Center.

I’m now a freshman in college at Macaulay Honors at Hunter, and even though I’m not debating this year, I read a lot, and try to keep up with a wide range of literature.

General stuff:

For those of you familiar with Beacon, you probably assumed correctly, I am a K debater. In high school I debated the K all four years, and in my senior (and part of my junior year) I ran a project on the aff and neg.

That being said, I do also vote on a good technical policy debate. Until the end of my junior year, I would always run a varied neg strat that included T, DAs, and CPs, and my partner and I would often go for one of them.

My biggest thing when it comes to judging is impacts. And this does not necessarily mean who has the most probable scenario for nuclear, but what are the implications of my ballot to the debate community. You will make my decision a lot easier, and will probably be a lot happier with it too, if you clearly tell me the significance of my ballot.

Specifics…

Topicality: T is almost always a voter for me. Just make sure that if you go for it, it’s not just dry extensions, but in depth analysis of it. Impact your T standards!! And for K Affs, I will vote on K of T, if you do a good job running it.

Counter Plans: I also enjoy a good CP debate (this includes PICS), I think they allow teams to get really creative with specific strats. You’re going to have a little more trouble winning me over with a word PIC, but that’s not to say that I won’t vote on it.

Disadvantages: DAs are fine, I’m just not the biggest fan of a mindless nuke war impact debates, if you can somehow make it more substantive you will have a much easier job winning.

Kritiks/Performance: I love Ks, I love the philosophy behind them, and I love what they stand for in debate. But that also means I have a fairly high threshold, if you are running a K make sure you don’t butcher it. As for performance, I’m all for it. As I said I ran a project aff my senior year, and I am totally down with the movement. Just make sure that you are solid on the framework debate, and tell me why your performance and choice not to engage in policy debate norms is better for the debate community.

Theory: You’re going to have a tough time getting me to vote on it, but if you spend a lot of time on it, and not jut blippy extensions, you get my ballot.

Framework: This I view as one of the most important debates in the round, because I think debate does have a lot of purpose, and debaters telling me what they think the purpose is, is key. I think that if you are not able to defend an activity that you have devoted so many weekends and countless hours of your life to, you should go home. If there is no framework run in round, I will default to either a policy or kritikal, or performance framework, depending on what’s being run; basically in framework I’m a tabula rasa (sorry for the judge wiki cliché).

Random Other stuff:

I’m fine with speed, just be clear. I will call clear three times, if I still can’t understand you, I’ll stop flowing.

Debates can get heated, but remember not to be plain rude. I think being passive aggressive and assertive is fine, but please don’t cross the line to just being belligerent.

And under no circumstances will I vote on a racism/white supremacy good argument.

Any other questions please email me at j.garnick123@gmail.com