Gorman,+Joseph

Joseph Gorman Affiliations: Wooster High School (OH) Background: debated (as a 2N) at Wooster for 4 years, qualified to NFL nationals 3 times, made it to late outruns at NFL nationals two times Rounds on oceans topic: 0

Short version: I try to be as much of a tabula rasa judge as is possible (nobody can ever be truly tab). So don’t change to adapt to me — I have experience with a wide variety of arguments and I’ll reward you for being good at what you do.

Long version: here are my thoughts on various arguments and issues. Everything here (besides the section titled “the non-negotiables”) is overridden by arguments made in a debate.

The non-negotiables: - speech times and order are set in stone - each debater must give one constructive and one rebuttal - if you misrepresent what you’ve read, you will lose; teams accusing another team of ethics violation must have proof of their allegations - if you want to mark a card, you must say the word you are marking the card at aloud and either you or your partner must write it down (I will as well). I will ask you after your speech where you marked the card(s). If you misrepresent where the card was marked, I won’t evaluate the card, and if the other team catches you misrepresenting where the card was marked and accuses you of an ethics violation, you will lose.

Paperless policy: I don’t take prep for flashing (unless teams are taking too long, at which point I’ll change my mind). This means that the contents of the speech document should not change after prep is stopped (removing analytics is prep, not flashing). If I think you’re prepping after you’ve stopped prep, I’ll tell you and take extra prep time off/restart prep. If your computer crashes, we can stop prep while you fix it, but nobody else can touch their computers or flows during that process.

Speed: go whatever speed you want, as long as you are clear. You should slow down a little on theory, dense overviews, advocacy texts, or T standards if you want me to get every argument you are making (this should be common sense). My flow is the only flow that matters, so if you aren’t making arguments in a way that they wind up on my flow, you’re hurting yourself.

Evidence: Quality over quantity. Spin and smart analytics can beat cards, and good spin of ok cards can beat ok spin of good cards. Evidence comparison is key - I’m reluctant to call for cards that aren’t given some sort of comparison because that feels too close to intervention. I’ll call for cards to decide competing claims about the quality of a card, or if the debaters leave me no other way to decide the debate. You must provide the other team a complete and accurately highlighted copy of the evidence you read no later than when your speech ends.

Tech/Truth: I lean tech. Dropped arguments are true to the extent that they were made when dropped. That is, a dropped 3-second theory cheap shot isn’t a round winner. Obviously, you’ll want to blow up and impact out a dropped argument, but if this fundamentally changes the nature or scope of the argument then I’m more likely to grant new responses from the other team. Also, if an argument is answered by an argument elsewhere on the flow, it’s not dropped. I will ignore new arguments, but only if the opposing team points out that they are new and explains why new arguments should be rejected. The amount of leniency I grant the 2AR on new argument/extrapolation depends on what, if any, requests for protection the 2NR makes.

Topicality: One of my favorite arguments. Please don’t ruin it. I’ve run questionably topical affs and I’ve given entire 2NCs on topicality, so I’m more than willing to vote for either side on it. Evidence comparison, case lists, internal link and impact calc, and line-by-line are critical to get my vote. “Reasonability” isn’t an argument — an explanation of how the aff is reasonable and how that resolves the negative’s offense is an argument.

Theory: Good theory debates are good. This means having warrants for your arguments. This also means using line-by-line and actually addressing your opponent’s arguments. Internal link calculus and impact calc here help you. I probably won’t vote on your theory argument if it’s not argued well. I default to rejecting the argument, not the team, on most theory arguments. Specific abuse is key, particularly if you want me to reject the team.

Framework: The aff should minimally advocate something in the direction of the resolution. I can be easily persuaded that the aff’s burden is higher than that. All else equal, I would rather see a good debate over the substance of the affirmative than a good framework debate. I view framework much like a topicality argument. You probably won’t get me to vote against a team just for running framework, but it can certainly magnify other arguments.

Disads: Generic disads are bad. Sometimes they’re all you have, but I’d rather see a well-argued specific dish. You can make generic disads not suck by reading case-specific links and doing good impact/turns case work. There is such a thing as zero risk and terminal defense. Politics debates aren’t my favorite, especially when teams just read Thursday Files back and forth at each other without having done any real work on the argument. Good politics disads, which can withstand a 2AC that took the time to read the entire text of the 1NC cards, are very hard to find. Politics theory is legitimate.

Counterplans: Presumption shifts aff when the 2NR goes for a CP (or a K). I don’t have an opinion on textual vs. functional competition. Solvency advocates make me lean slightly neg on theory; not having a solvency advocate makes me lean slightly aff on theory. Similarly, a competitive counterplan makes aff theory arguments slightly less persuasive.

Kritiks: You should explain what the world of the alternative looks like. You should contextualize the links to the aff. I’m skeptical of most role-of-the-ballot arguments (usually they take the place of good impact analysis), particularly when neither team does any comparison between competing roles of the ballot. I’m familiar with a good deal of kritik literature, but you should approach the round under the assumption that I haven’t heard your particular kritik before.

How to get good speaker points, in no particular order: - know what you are talking about - specific historical examples, deep analysis, etc. - make smart strategic decisions - particularly true for good 1nc strategies and 1ar tricks - ethos - relying on depth of argumentation, rather than breadth of argumentation - efficiency - using CX in your speeches - that’s 12 minutes of the debate that I have to pay attention to, I’d prefer that they matter - smart preempts and even-if statements - good and comprehensive impact calc, beyond generic probability/magnitude/timeframe - clever and genuine (not forced) humor - good case debate

How to lose speaker points, in no particular order: - being mean, especially to novices (however, don’t “debate down” against them, as teams get better by losing to good teams) - reading ahead in the other team’s speech docs - this is arguably grounds to lose the entire debate (but the other team must make that argument) - prep stealing (this is also arguably grounds to lose the debate) - not flowing - 2As: being too superficial on case - reading canned case extensions - flowing from the other team’s speech doc, rather than from their actual speech - tooling your partner - addressing me as “judge” - being overly block-dependent