Groh,+Peter

Peter Groh Binghamton University debated for 4 years in college, been to the NDT once so far.

I'm a political science major who suspects his own discipline is a poorly delivered joke. My academic background/interest stumbles around lit criticism and a lot of dead philosophers. That being said, if you're more comfortable reading politics and T, i'm not gonna hate --- don't misinterpret my grumpy looks in the back of the room as something you're doing wrong, i was just born that way. I'll evaluate any and everything from aliens to zizek. you want to read 3 politics scenarios? make it rain. you want to read a poem? impact it and we're golden. As far as speed/the techne of debate --- organization is always appreciated, but if you're the kind of person that goes to only one flow and goes straight down, i'll also be fine. My nonverbal feedback consists of either throwing my hands off my keyboard when i can't flow you, rocking back and forth when i'm down, and rolling my eyes when you say you should win b/c you're topical.

my take on the role i play when judging is that i'm endorsing a particular 'political' (w/e the hell that means) position with regards to the resolution. Evidentiary comparisons and impact calc are easy way to my vote. I am not automatically a policymaker. I am not a cop. I am evaluating the endorsement of the 1AC against the alternatives and/or justifications the negative presents. If you think I should be looking at the round or evaluating competition in a different way, just say so.


 * Topicality** --- while i'd rather be suckerpunched than vote on T, i've been doing it like it's my job for the last few tournaments i've judged. I'm up in the air as to whether I default to reasonability or competing interps, which is a not-so-subtle hint you should try to force me down one of these roads when you're running/answering T.


 * Counterplans** --- go nuts. net benefits that turn case --- excellent. if the 1ar needs to collapse and hunker down on theory to answer them, don't be scared to if you think it's the strategic option

That being said, I like well-developed framework and theory debates --- slow down a little bit here and impact your violations, whether you’re impact turning fw or going for roleplaying good. Debates about how we debate are some of the most thought-provoking and 'real-world' ones I've ever heard. Any questions I’m not answering here, ask me. Intelligent aggressiveness and jokes get rewarded --- douchtitude gets mocked. Don’t take yourselves too seriously, or me, for that matter.
 * K'**s --- yes. Specific links highlighted at the top of the 2nc --- great. Don’t think because I like ‘em I’ll give you leeway on an undeveloped K, I really like depth on the link/impact level, and it can only help you to be making that analysis. Good alternative debates don’t happen as often as they should --- make yours interact with the affirmative instead of just yelling ‘reject the aff’
 * Theory/Framework** ---on the one hand, if this is your ONLY answer to critical strategies, ::facepalm::. – the team advancing the argument will have the greater burden, I don’t think anyone’s guilty until proven innocent (which is something to consider when/if you’re trying to articulate K links as well) so absent rampant inround abuse I’ll probably err neg with most critiques and some consult/cp theory-at-large (though I have a soft spot in my heart for affs answering consult)
 * Performance**: make the performance offensive and we’re golden. I see a lot of the debate space as an arbitrary and assumed form, and if you want to do something creative with that form I’ll gleefully follow you if you can warrant it. I’m no stranger to the deferral game but will be tempted to protect the other team from sandbagging --- though they’ll have to make that argument.